Broadcasting’s new big chill

As Appeared in Long Island Business News, Friday, April 20, 2007

By Jaci Clement

When CBS Radio fired Don Imus last week, it set the stage for limiting your freedom of expression.

If you were outraged by Imus and said so, you and Imus were enjoying the same freedom. Now that CBS has determined that irresponsibility has no place in broadcasting, a chill effect takes over.

Irresponsibility will not be allowed today. Tomorrow, there will be no room for the objectionable. And the next day, there will be no tolerance for something you just don’t want to hear.

The chill effect does not change the First Amendment, but it does change the way it is employed. It’s the difference between theory and application, and in this instance, the two are now oceans apart.

Now, what we could say and what we should say take on a new standard: Just because you could say something horrible, like Imus did, doesn’t mean you should.

But when you no longer can say something, what you should say loses all meaning.

On Thursday night, when Imus was told to shut up, an all-important first step was taken toward silencing a nation.

Imus apologized. But if apologizing suddenly becomes the norm, shock jocks will lose their edge and go the way of the dodo bird.

The media circus simply added fuel to the fire. Cable paraded a litany of talking heads across the screen. There were the people who supported Imus, all of whom have benefited personally or financially from being on his show. No credibility here. On the other side of the fence, there was Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson, denouncing Imus for his actions yet heightening racial tensions with their airtime. No credibility there.

Most lacking in credibility was the news media itself, which had taken to repeating what Imus shouldn’t have said and saying it tenfold. Apparently, today’s journalistic standards have grown so lax that attributing Imus as the source of the quote now absolves them of responsibility.

Of course, old shock jocks never die, they just go to satellite. This one will most likely make a pit stop on Larry King Live, probably with his wife at his side, weeping on cue to questions decided in advance.

Imus shouldn’t have been fired. He could have been suspended and fined, then some of his show’s promotion schedule taken away. If he truly was sorry, he should have resigned.

People say there was too much money involved for him to walk away.

If that’s true, why wasn’t it enough money to keep him?

In Three Words, Imus Changed The Future

As this rainy Sunday morning progressed into a predicted Nor'easter, I hydroplaned over to the Connecticut School of Broadcasting in Westbury to be a guest on the Steve and Carmelo radio show.

As you might expect, they wanted to chat about Imus.

Why, though, was something of a surprise.

I was introduced to Carmelo when I spoke to a journalism class run by The New York Times' David Winzelberg at Five Towns College. David wanted to me to talk reality to students interested in a glamorous career in the media. I was only too happy to do it, not only because I consider it my job, but because I'd worked for newspapers since I was a kid, which means I've spent a lot of time with line tape stuck to my clothes. Ah yes, the glamour.

Do I think Imus should've been fired? Absolutely not. Firing him does not undo the damage of his derogatory comments; what it does is weaken the foundation of a country built on the premise of freedom of speech. Now, the entire broadcasting industry stands to lose because CBS Radio made the easy decision instead of the right decision.

On the show, we talk about how such a decision ushers in a chill effect, which means shock jocks and, by extension, all media will rethink what its says now. First, they'll be afraid to be irresponsible, then they'll shy away from saying something to which you might object. Finally, they won't say anything they think you won't want to hear. Shutting up Imus was the first step toward silencing a nation.

People often forget to look at the other side of freedom of speech, usually because they're so mad about something that's just been said their initial reaction is to call for the demise of the person who said it.

This is where Newton's Third Law comes into play: For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. If Imus said something to make you mad, you get to say so. When Imus' right to speak is taken away, so is yours. Sorry about that, but that's the way it works. We don't get to pick and choose who gets to have a particular freedom. Either we all have it, or no one has it. Which would you prefer? How interesting that the greatest asset of our country is also our greatest liability.

For Steve and Carmelo, they don't really see what was so offensive with what Imus said. After all, it was just street talk. To them, he was just being himself. Their viewpoint is partially colored by the their age: Shock jocks have been in existence for their entire lives.

So what's the big deal?

To Steve and Carmelo, the big deal is they hope to get jobs in the radio industry. One day, perhaps to be shock jocks, too.

It's a career that may, given the events of the past week, simply be a dream.

Latest On Local News

Media reform is now a hot topic. The controversy over controlling the internet, combined with the recent changes of who's in control in Washington, D.C., has culminated in making media reform the equivalent of the new black for the spring of 2007.

The sudden public interest in what we do all day inspired us to kick off 2007 by introducing you to our Media Savvy Bill of Rights, with 10 rights and responsibilities created specifically with you in mind. The bill of rights serves as the perfect springboard for what else we’ll be introducing this year.

There’s also much talk about media ownership and what the FCC will do to revise the rules that enabled big media to grow bigger. Even the Fairness Doctrine is back on the table. With all these issues suddenly front and center, now’s the time to address where we stand and, with your help, where we’re heading.

To begin with, "reform" is a word with a bad rep.

That’s why we use “advocacy” when we discuss how media needs to change. It gives what we do a connotation that we’re working for you, the public, with a positive outlook that improvement is possible. Reform? Well, that makes it sound like the solution involves giving someone a good smack.

Your garden-variety media reformistas will tell you the problem with our society is that a handful of companies control the media you watch, read and hear. While it’s true the era of media consolidation has dwindled ownership down to about six companies accounting for the majority of your news and information, there’s much more to it than that. So, please, read on.

For the record, the Fair Media Council is anti-consolidation. We always have been. Not because we believe in limiting someone’s business success, but because people need a variety of news and information sources in order to understand the issues at play and how what’s happening will affect their lives. People also need a variety of opinions from a diverse array of people in the news and information they receive.

One of the huge problems with media consolidation is the repackaging of content: same information, just presented differently. Helps to fill time and space, and it’s cost effective, too. But the formula fails when it reaches the public because, despite having 600 channels and plenty of free publications to pick up, the public is suffering from information starvation. There’s lots of white noise out there, but there’s a dearth of reliable, credible information offered up in a manner that provides the perspective of how the information impacts those who work and live real lives.

Aside from content considerations, the current media ownership rules make it impossible for small and even medium-sized media companies to compete, let alone prosper, alongside media conglomerates. Whatever happened to the theory that the success of the free enterprise system was contingent upon the employment of businesses of all sizes? In our market, we’ve watched our 19 commercial radio stations turn from news and information providers into mere marketing tools. Now, not one of those stations employs a news reporter. Local radio used to have a purpose, but anyone younger than a Gen Xer isn’t able to remember that.

With the vast majority of our local media owned by out of towners, here’s something else to think about: Where are your advertising dollars going? There was a time when they stayed here, to strengthen your local economy. Now, they go to corporate, to make shareholders happy.
Like media consolidation, cross ownership creates a similar litany of ills within a marketplace. Tribune Co.’s owning Newsday and CW11 is problematic for many of the reasons stated above.
But the state of media policy is only one part of the equation that affects the quality of your local news, and this is where we differ from other media reform organizations.


We believe there are three, equally important parts to the formula for improving media: media policy, education and accountability.


Educating the public about media is vital to creating a media literate society, one that can readily distinguish between news and opinion, as well as news and advertisements. Most people can’t recognize the difference between a news show and a talk show, or a news story and a column.

The problem, of course, is that we don’t have an education standard in our education system for teaching media literacy, yet we live in a country built on the premise of freedom of the press and freedom of speech. You’re just supposed to know, by osmosis, what that means. If adults have such issues with the media delivered into their households, how will their children fare?

Last, but certainly not least, is media accountability. Holding the media accountable for what it publishes and broadcasts is imperative to improving local news coverage. In order for accountability to happen, the public has to be educated on how media works and what to do when it fails. Inside newsrooms, receiving no complaints translates into everything was just fine with the news. We know that’s not true. That’s why we’re here, to help.

To that end, in 2007 you’ll see us unveil a new local news monitoring project. We’ll be monitoring the news in the market for news you need versus the news that’s being delivered to you. We call it “big-picture monitoring.” It’s vastly different from other news monitoring projects happening around the country, which focus on singular stories or the amount of time or space a story is given.

Also on tap: our expansion into Queens and beyond.

With so much happening already, 2007 is going to be interesting. Join us now. Be an advocate for improving your local news coverage.

Self-Serving Media

As appeared in Broadcasting & Cable, 2/19/2007

In response to your editorial "The Needless Doctrine" (Jan. 29), I admit you have a point. Yes, abiding by the fairness doctrine did cause tongues to be tied. But am I to infer that, in a land freed from the doctrine's constraints, we're living in an era of enlightenment, filled with hard news and heated debate? Please. I live on Long Island with a population of 3 million people and 19 commercial radio stations that do not employ one news reporter.

How about changing the license-renewal process so a company has to illustrate how it has earned the right to continue to feed the airwaves America owns? In exchange for the half a trillion dollars media companies take in, I'm entitled to enlightenment, information, news and debate.

Jaci Clement
Executive Director
Fair Media Council
Bethpage, N.Y.

Four Keys To Recognizing A Good Reporter

Anybody can go into reporting. Few, though, are actually good at it.

Being a journalist does not require a specialized degree, although some reporters are j-school grads. Reporting is a trade that, to a large degree, can be taught through on-the-job training. In fact, if a new reporter is lucky enough to be mentored by an experienced journalist, that new reporter will get an invaluable real-world education. Sadly, this era of media consolidation has seen many of the most experienced journalists put out to pasture, simply because they are the biggest expenses on their corporate masters’ budget sheets. The net result? There’s a lot of new reporters out there, often looking like deer trapped in headlights, given bylines and put on the air before they’ve mastered the basic mechanics of their trade.

There’s also an element of journalism that can’t be taught: Some people instinctively can smell a story. They’re the ones who always seem to be at the right place at the right time to produce a story no one else has, or they find a story angle everyone else has missed. As you might imagine, this type of reporter is few and far between.

So how can you tell which reporters are the good ones? The kind that make you sleep easier at night, knowing your country’s fundamental precepts are in good hands? And who are the ones who are screwing everything up?

Here’s some telltale signs:

• Attention to Detail. A good reporter doesn’t take anything for granted. Expect the spelling of your name and title to be verified, especially if it’s a reporter who’s new to you. Titles do change, and so do companies’ names, now that we feel the need to rebrand everything we touch. Women’s names change, too. If it’s been awhile since the same reporter has called you, he or she should reconfirm this basic information with you. Expect other basic facts (places, people, dates, numbers) to be confirmed as well. Such an attention to detail tells you the reporter is committed to providing accurate information.

• No Assumptions. Good reporters make no assumptions. Even though we no longer live in an age of beat reporters (those who specialize in a particular field of reporting), even general assignment reporters should have the basic concept of why he or she is calling you at this time in history. A good reporter will have checked out your website, searched for any recent news articles about your organization, and may even speak wiith other reporters who have dealt with you, all before he or she calls you. That research will help dictate the types of questions the reporter asks and which details will be confirmed.

• Properly-Phrased Questions. If you’ve ever watched a crime drama on television, you’re familiar with the scene where a trial lawyer raises an objection against another for “leading the witness.” Leading questions are the hallmark of a reporter who is trying to get you to say what he or she needs you to say, to make the story work. For instance, a leading question would be, “Did it make you feel good when the jury read the verdict?” A properly-phrased question would be, “How did it make you feel when the jury read the verdict?” A reporter who continuously tries to lead you to say what he or she wants you to say is trying to write a story for the sake of a story, not for the sake of the facts. Good reporters properly phrase questions. And bad reporters? They should be told, politely, to rephrase their question, each and every time they ask a leading question.

• Quote Confirmation. Often, a reporter will read back key quotes you have given, to confirm they are accurate. But not always. The key here is to know that you have every right to ask the reporter to read back your quotes. You do not have a right to see the story before it’s printed or broadcast. A good reporter will be happy to read back your quotes to you, and may seek clarification upon review. Bad reporters will get tripped up, if they’ve only written down part of your quote and taken it out of context.

Media Savvy Bill of Rights

• You have a right to a variety of media voices in your market, which serve to provide an array of news and information. News should not all look the same, nor use only the same sources and viewpoints.
• You have a right to a variety of news stories on the same subject, to offer you different insight, different facts and different things to think about before forming your opinion.
• You have a right to disagree with opinions you hear and read in the news. What’s in the news is not the judge and jury; it’s simply the first rough draft of history in the making.
• You have a responsibility to speak out when you hear or read news that is inaccurate or limited in scope.
• You have a right to grant an interview or to decline an interview with the media. There’s no “have tos” in this instance; but if you can offer an alternative, enlightening or contradictory point of view, why wouldn’t you?
• You have a responsibility to explain your point of view to the best of your ability when being interviewed.
• You have a right to an interview that allows you to share your knowledge. Reporters who cut you off, or don’t want to hear what you have to say for fear it will blow their story’s premise, aren’t playing fair. Report them to the Fair Media Council.
• You have a right to prepare for interviews not done on immediate deadline. It’s within your right to know the reason a reporter wants an interview. (You do not have a right to the questions in advance.)
• You have a responsibility to act on information you find in the news to make your community a better place.
• You have a right to freedom of speech, just as the news media has a right to freedom of the press. Both you and the media have a responsibility to maintain freedom of speech and the press by providing accurate information to the public.

The Rise of the New American Dream

A few days before the fifth anniversary of America's only major terrorist attack, amid the burgeoning onslaught of news dedicated to the subject, I sat and listened to about 50 college students ponder the impact Sept. 11, 2001 played upon their lives.

Freshmen and sophomores, hardly into their teens at the time of the tragedy, admitted to having not much of a frame of reference.

Only those in their 20s could draw on memories of what life in the United States was like, prior to the day that snatched our sense of security on American soil.

They spoke of what they were doing when it happened, and how it affected their family and friends. How they saw their mothers weep, and how their high school teachers broke down as they told their classes what was happening in New York.

And so it seemed appropriate, on this wet and dreary afternoon in a lecture hall at Hofstra University, that the darkness within the souls of these young adults came to be shared and discussed in a forum to someday be aired on C-SPAN.

Leading the discussion was MTV's Gideon Yago. The students came to view Yago as a kindred spirit of sorts. Clearly, he was a contemporary, and as he moderated, he passed no judgment over their opinions. Once the rhythm of Yago's style kicked in, the college students became more eager to offer details and less uncomfortable as they spoke. Perhaps they'd never had this opportunity before. It was obvious they had been accustomed to taking their seats at the kiddie table ... and to not being heard.

These were the thoughts and feelings of the echo-boom generation. It's a generation born into exceedingly high expectations, for they are the children of baby boomers.

The baby boomers, as you know, worked hard to set a new standard on the old American Dream. After all, it was their parents' generation that aspired to the greatest symbol of American achievement: owning a home.

The boomers, then, figured out if one home is good, two must be better.

So now I sit in Monroe Hall, listening to a generation that's never known a day without videogames, talk about their realities, their hopes and their dreams.

There, in the crossroad of their conversation, a new American Dream began to take shape.

For this generation of Americans, their dream is a future without fear.

It's a revelation by a generation living in a parallel universe to that of their parents. The boomers' ambition and earning power enabled them to give their kids the best of everything.

But was all the material success enough to give them what they now need most?

The conversation shifts to the terror alert that continuously crawls along their television screens, courtesy of FOX News and other 24-hour cable channels.

In a manner once reserved for breaking news, the now-continuous alert is book ended by news of the day. Not necessarily breaking, nor important news, but it's presented in a way that caused older generations to stop what they were doing and pay attention.

To these students, it's viewed as a fear factor with diminishing returns. They choose to ignore it, and blame the media for trying to scare them even more than they already are, by sticking the terror alert in their faces.

What they can't ignore is the militia they see in Penn Station, or their friends going off to fight in a war. They're not quite sure why the war started, but they trust education will help them better understand the cultural differences at play.

What they don't trust is the government and the media, and not necessarily in that order. They don't see anyone offering solutions or, on a broader scale, the hope they so desperately seek.

What they do see so clearly right now is that they are powerless. And they are saddled with a generation divided by those who are old enough to have experienced a breathe or two of pure freedom, and those who aren't. It's the latter that views the new world order as the way things have always been, and the former seems to grasp that concept as one of the greatest dangers facing its generation.

Musings on Media's Election-Time Maneuvers

Election time always brings to the fore whatever particular neurotic impulse is currently ailing the media.

In 2000, they thought they could get us to suspend our disbelief, as if we all walked into a movie theatre at the same time. Unfortunately, in their haste to call the race they actually got ahead of the news… which we all found out when we woke up the next day, anyway.

And have reminded them of it every day since. (Did somebody say, "Florida"?)

So, a mere six years later, news outlets made a solemn pact. They promised they'd try something that, no doubt, tugged at the very heart of their techno-savvy centers.

Now, there's something about technology that makes otherwise highly-skilled and perfectly-principled news editors and directors lose their minds.

They like gadgets.

They want to play with geegaws.

They want to see how many new things they can make whatever-it-is-that-came-out-of-the-very-big-box do to improve their news products.

But, after getting tired of playing with the new toys (and finally crawling out of the empty boxes), they made a promise: No election result announcements until we have actual election results. CNN went so far as to declare they would actually "rather be right than first."

Gulp.

Guess six years is a long time to walk around with egg on your face.

OK, in the end, they couldn't help themselves. A bit of prognosticating took place. NBC and MSNBC lead the way. A moment later, ABC came in with results. CNN took third, closely followed by CBS and finally, Fox News.

ABC won the night, ratings wise, buoyed by the popularity of "Dancing With the Stars." Seems that after teen honey Joey Lawrence got the boot, people stayed tuned into ABC to watch the election unfold.

Note to media: How about picking up that sentiment, "better to be right than first," and turning it into a daily mantra? When temptation strikes, simply repeat the following, three times slowly: Sago, New Orleans, Jon-Benet, Sago.

Note to Katie Couric: Since sitting on top of the anchor desk hasn't brought you ratings success, why not try boogying on top of it?

# # #

This time around, we saw further signs that newspapers' editorial influence is on the decline or, more pointedly, merely lingering on life support.

The editorial pages are one of the last great bastions of the old boys' club, but the influence they peddle has diminished as the editors lose touch with the pulse of the public. That fact, combined with the continuously diminishing return of readers, makes editorial page reading a passe activity. Case in point: The New York Times and Newsday both gave an obligatory nod to Spitzer and Cuomo but, combined, they didn't have enough mojo to get the only long shot - Mejias - into the seat long warmed by King.

The more interesting malady du jour that infiltrated the media was presented by Madison Avenue. This year's campaign ads took an intriguing twist: No longer simply satisfied to outdo previous year's negative campaigning, this year we saw the debut of the grin-and-grin contagion. As in: If I have a photo of me taken with Eliot Spitzer, I will win the election. We won't talk much about me, we'll just show me with the man of the moment. It won't matter if I'm better qualified or not, because all people will remember is me. Me with Eliot.

Grip-and-grin contagion also works in reverse: If someone can find a photo of me standing, sitting or walking anywhere near Pete McGowan at any moment in history, I will lose.

Note to future players: Watch out for the camera.

Delaraba: 1; Newsday: 0

In what has blossomed into an epic battle of the bullies, Nassau Police Benevolent Association President Gary Delaraba wins the belt over his worthy contender, the Newsday editorial pages.

Here's why.

The Nassau PBA has launched a series of attack ads focusing on the Newsday editorial pages, claiming they are arrogant, bullying, one-sided and, in effect, a shadow government. Newsday Editorial Page Editor Jim Klurfeld's response (in Newsday, May 21, 2006) was a simple editorial-writers-are-paid-to-write-their-opinions type of answer.

Not so fast, Jim.

While it's true editorial writers are privileged to view the world from their bully pulpits, that doesn't give them the right to act like bullies. Nor does it mean only the doctrine according to the editor and his supporting apostles is all that's meant to appear in the editorial pages.

Here's where Delaraba starts edging ahead.

The Nassau PBA prez's bone of contention is that Newsday has failed to print his letters and opinions that range from offering a different point of view to outright contradicting the self-appointed gods of editorial privilege. Klurfeld's response, again in Newsday, was that Delaraba's writings were "inaccurate."

Given that Delaraba would be what is known as a "primary source" in journalism, it's hard to fathom how he could pen an opinion piece or letter that would be so erroneous it failed to have merit.

It leads inquiring minds to speculate: Perhaps the writings were one sided? Yes, but of course. Keep in mind: It's an opinion piece, and that's allowed. (That's also why reporters in the newsroom seldom open doors for editorial types.) Arrogant? Possibly. Bullying? Probably. Inaccurate? Doubtful.

In fairness to Newsday, we haven't seen Delaraba's alleged contributions. In fairness to Delaraba, we've primary sourced the Newsday editorial situation, and we're witness to the we-only-print-opinions-that-agree-with-us philosophy.

And that's where Delaraba scores, by bringing to the public consciousness the Newsday editorial pages' unconscionable behavior. Those in power are responsible for helping those who are not. Instead, we find those in power prefer to harness ideas and opinions in order to pretend they lead when, in fact, they manipulate the direction of the trusting herd.

But now, things are changing. Newspaper circulation, including Newsday's, continues to decline. Along with it, the power of the editorial. In fact, you could argue that the problem with newspapers in general is embodied in the Newsday editorial pages in particular: Out of touch, teetering on irrevelant opinions offered by a generation of writers that takes things like a permanent address for granted and the two-party system to heart.

When power starts to fade, bullies take to arm twisting, because the shouting now falls on too many deaf ears. The irony here is Newsday editorial pages, and Klurfeld in particular, are often rightly accused of being bullies. So, too, Delaraba. Even Newsday's Larry Levy referred to Delaraba as a bully back in 2005. Perhaps they're all scuffling to determine a new pecking order, but it's to no avail.

The problem with bullies is not that they're pack dogs, but that they're alpha-dog wannabes. True leaders don't huff and puff and threaten to blow your house down. True leaders only move the house when it's in the best interest of the village and do so, quietly, so as not to disturb the villagers.

Now that Delaraba's made his point so publicly, perhaps he doesn't have to spend as much of the PBA's funds as anticipated for this $20,000-a-week cable advertising campaign. Perhaps Newsday can use this as an excuse to take a hard look at what it is, and what it could and should be doing for this island.

Explainer: Why the D.A. is Losing in the Court of Public Opinion

Lately, we've been hearing a lot about Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice. Unfortunately, based on how the D.A. has handled the issue, there's going to be a lot more talk.

Here, you'll find no political spin. No ax to grind. No arguments for or against family, women, nor women with families. Simply an educational turn for those wondering why, in a day and age where news changes every minute, this issue with the woman D.A. continues to have legs.

There was the news story in Newsday, telling the tale of how the newbie D.A. was ushering out the office's old-time management style which, ironically enough, was actually a progressive flex-time policy for working mothers. That announcement ushered in plenty of public reaction, which basically dubbed the D.A. to be "anti-family" and "anti-woman." The editorial in this past Sunday's New York Times echoed that theme, then noted it will take "inventiveness" to attract quality employees to work in Rice's office. Yesterday, there was an op.ed. in Newsday, written by Rice herself, which only succeeded in spawning more outcry.

The piece by Rice could have been, and should have been, the definitive manifesto of how she was creating a culture of positive change within her sphere of influence. Instead, it was a paint-by-numbers piece that clearly illustrated two things: Rice not only has completely missed the point of why she's caused a backlash against herself, she's even missed the public relations opportunity of a lifetime.

Here's the play-by-play of how Rice missed her own spin cycle, in three easy steps.

Lesson #1: Prove Your Point.

First, Rice addresses the issue of what happened. (That's good.) It's in the second paragraph of her piece, so it's high enough to be stumbled upon by most readers, even those barely interested. (It would be better if it was in the first paragraph, but in this instance, the opening paragraph serves as a prelude to the second graph.)

She then addresses her critics' charges, and denies being "anti-family" and/or "anti-woman."

"Nothing could be further from the truth," she said.

The problem?

She doesn't then, nor at any point within the piece, prove it. So, while it's admirable she's put verbiage to paper, there's really no evidence presented to convince the reader she is, in fact, pro-family or pro-woman. She does mention she's hired more women than her predecessor, but doesn't show why (could it have simply been circumstance?) or explain the importance of it.

What the reader's left with, so far, is the feeling that this woman doth protest too much.

Lesson #2: Illustrate Due Diligence.

Next, Rice chooses to explain her reasoning for eliminating flex-time schedules, and summed up her action by pointing out that "criminals do not work part time." Now, I don't know if that's true or not, and the average reader would probably shrug that one off, too, and hand the point to the D.A.

But I strongly doubt criminals punch a clock, to report in from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. If they could, they should, because that would be very convenient for the D.A.s office, under the new setup. If crime is anything like news (there are so many parallels to this one that we'll save it for a rainy day), then we know it happens at the most inconvenient times.

So the D.A.'s assertion that staff can't work part-time because criminals don't work part-time really doesn't hold much water, does it? Especially since there's no evidence, no numbers, no antidotes to show that the part-time thing just wasn't working well. More importantly, there's no evidence, no numbers and no antidotes to illustrate anticipated improvements by changing the flex-time schedule to full-time.

We do know that, human behavior being what it is, humans tend to take as much time as is given to complete a task. Therefore, it's plausible that full-time schedules won't make the office more efficient or more successful. What's missing is the argument that proves why the change will, indeed, affect positive change and is not simply the doings of a manager unskilled at managing people.

Lesson #3: The Blame Game. Just Don't Go There. Ever.

Ah, in the third and final portion of Rice's missive, we find she's saddled with problems from her predecessor's reign as well as limited by the county's fiscal predicament. Playing the Blame Game is inexcusable. When someone writes, "I do not have the luxury of hiring more staff," what the reader reads is, "Don't you feel sorry for me?" In this case, the reader's response is, "No."

Why?

The D.A.'s response focuses on keeping the scales of justice balanced, not on the humanity of the people involved in the justice system itself. In essence, humanity has taken her to task for failing to show her own humanity, and rightly so. After 700 words, it's still missing in action.

Small wonder the backlash continues to gather steam.

Behind the Scenes at Connection Day

Bringing the media face-to-face with the public presents plenty of opportunities for things to go awry.

That's what makes it so much fun.

The day after, well, that's when we find out how things went, from the evaluation forms to the buzz in the blogosphere.

By the numbers, Connection Day brings out about 100 members of the New York-area media to meet about 400 members of the public. Companies large and small, nonprofits and one-person startups cross numerous county lines to fill seven rooms at the Long Island Hilton for three concurrent sessions. Panelists and moderators brave bridges, tolls and traffic to lead discussions filled with advice and, at times, highly charged and passionate discourse. See what I mean about the fun?

Connection Day is pretty much a blur of meeting and greeting, with plenty of trouble shooting thrown in, just for good measure. The next day is the day to slowly get out of bed, throw on comfortable clothes, grab a venti and head into the office.

Waiting there on my desk is an enormous stack of evaluation forms, demanding immediate attention. They're anonymously-filled out, and unsurprisingly, often acerbic. Notations on panelists they liked, but more often, those they didn't. Moderators who got on their nerves. Rooms that were too cold or too noisy. Ah, and that's just for starters.

The morning of Oct. 12 saw plenty of news waiting to happen. People started rolling into the hotel about 8 a.m. Halfway through the networking break, at 10:30 a.m., it was standing room only.

About 7 p.m. the night before, we canceled a panel, after all three panelists had to pull out, plus two others who had been on tap as replacements. Knowing I'd hate if I signed up for a panel and not one person on the panel matched the promotion materials, I gave in to the fates. Statistically speaking, the chances of all those people pulling out of one panel are so slim I can only reasonably assume the concept was cursed from the beginning. That now means about 50 people need to be reassigned to other workshops. Nicole is still in the office at 10 p.m., dealing with last-minute changes and guest lists.

In the a.m., I spend some time talking to vendors and participants. I'm approached by a few people, each with a slight case of trepidation. I'm not sure what it is, but plenty of people have told me I'm intimidating. The last few interviews I gave caused stuttering and stammering in reporters on the other end of the phone. I thought I was being nice. Sometimes, it appears I can annoy people simply by walking into the room. I decide there's only one thing to do about all of this: Stop wearing suits.

Thus far, my strategy doesn't seem to be working.

AP's Rich Mendelson doesn't care what I'm wearing. He's lost his day planner and, by extension, his life. A hard target search is in order, especially since he knows he has an afternoon meeting, just not where or with whom. My cell shows missed calls. Newsday's Sandra Peddie's stuck in court, but Steve Wick is on his way over. By the time I retrieve the message, Wick is standing in front of me. I walk him down the hallway, in a hand off to Gary Lewi.

From the evaluation forms, what happened within that room is the stuff from which legends are made.

Wick's last-minute save was simply part of Newsday's overall willingness to come out and play. That mood has somehow carried over to the rest of the event. The media say they're honored to be panelists; participants say how much they've looked forward to the date. Everyone is openly respectful.

Next door to the investigative panel, the topic is whether or not advertising can impact coverage. It's a topic that calls for a strong moderator. That's why I emailed Matt Crosson. He emailed back, saying he'd be happy to tackle the topic.

Cool.

I want panelists to be Dan Forman, together with Carl Corry, who I think will hit it off. Round it out with Scott Matthews of Fox 5. All's good, til Forman cancels at 5:30 p.m. the day prior. I move Michael Allen Harrison from another panel. Evaluations say: "Surprisingly good."

In the ballroom, Pat Halpin is moderating one of the biggest and always one of the most popular panels, pitching television news reporters. He's got a solid group; no worries about what's happening there. Linda Armyn graciously steps in to fill a last-minute moderator void in another room. Down the hallway, the bloggers are beginning to bounce off the walls. A passionate debate ensues. The topic: Free speech vs. responsibility. The upshot? Plenty to blog about later that day.

A lot of people won't invite bloggers to events, simply because of the wild card factor: You can't control what they'll say when they get back to blogging. Control isn't what I'm interested in; I want debate, the kind of discourse that makes people remember what America is supposed to be about. Pat Foye leads the charge. The bloggers are up for the challenge.

An alert goes off my laptop. Yep, the bloggers have posted. Seems the controversy continues in cyberspace. I decide I have the right to weigh in, and post a few comments of my own.

I can't help but wonder about the bloggers. Is the blogosphere where angry journalists go to be bitter? These folks seem well meaning enough, but there's such a distain for mainstream media you can't help but wonder. We all know MSM's reputation's in the cellar; yet bloggers need a step ladder to reach that. Judging by their postings, it's a small wonder. There's no fact checking, names are misspelled … and they love to say FAIR Media Council, despite the admonitions that we are not in any way, shape or form aligned with Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. Despite their spotty recollection, they have deemed the event very "bloggy."

I hear one complaint about Bruce Lambert, and it's not really a complaint but, rather, a compliment. People want him to talk more. He's a perennial favorite as a panelist. Seems everybody except the Times knows Lambert should be more widely circulated.

Why they didn't take the stale stuff from the Long Island section and turn it into fresh stuff for the Metro section can only be attributed to an internal struggle of some sort. Certainly it wasn't a call made on behalf of its readers. And it wasn't due to lack of talent on staff.

The madness behind the decision to take the now-defunct Long Island section, hampered by a four-day lag between printing and delivery, to create the suburban section, which is still facing the delay in delivery but now sugarcoated in ever-more vague stories in a specific plan to appeal to suburbanites everywhere and, therefore, to attract no readers from anywhere, is a mystery. Such a conundrum, in fact, we're forced to wonder how long the Times will continue its current strategy for producing the highest quality obsolete information.

Jim Cameron's evaluations are all so stunning I begin to wonder if I should enlist an independent analysis of the handwriting samples, for fear Cameron is filling all of them out this way just to goof on me. But no, the only media trainer I trust is simply doing his shtick.

A couple of college students want to interview me for their news show. The reporter doesn't know how to properly introduce herself. I consider not doing it, then I decide it'll be much more effective to evaluate them and, through them, their professors. They have no idea where they are, or what the day is about. No clue how to ask a question. I'm polite, but just this once. Fair warning that next time, my oft-cited, highly intimidating manner will most likely come to the fore.

Patricia Kitchen emerges from her workshop, looking chic in her attire and victorious in her demeanor. She's had a lot of fun, and the evaluation forms show it: She's cited as one of the best panelists of the day.

On the other side of the coin, editors who can't explain what makes a story newsworthy leave me feeling lukewarm.

Joye Brown arrives right on time for her keynote. The ballroom is filling up as we get our acts together. Brian, the a/v guy, tells me he loves our Media Savvy breakfast series so much he makes sure he gets to work them. He even tells his mother what happens at them.

I'm not wearing a watch to note the time; Brown tapes hers to the podium to let her know when her time is up, but forgets to set the timer.

She talks about the good, the bad and the ugly of being a columnist. Of needing directions to get to places she'd never dreamed of going. Of watching people pose for pictures with the heart of a saint. Of the virtues of wi-fi. Of how, when it's all said and done, some of her most successful professional moments have boiled down to the good old-fashioned use of manners.

As she talks, I see the media relating to what she's saying and the public actively engaged in listening. I see a more diverse group of attendees, both in age and ethnicity. I wonder if it's due to the email promotion campaign; evaluations tell me email is the biggest reason people signed up. Only one form, one, tells me it was because of the newspaper ads.

Everyone is eating the cheesecake.

They're shy to get up and ask questions. Slowly but surely, it begins to happen. I see Sandy Hinden making a determined walk to the microphone. I wonder what's on his mind, since world peace is often his topic du jour. He tells Brown she should do a column about men because, as he says, "Men have problems."

The audience loves it.

Overall, the workshops are well received. A few malcontents here and there, but that's to be expected and appreciated, to some extent. Someone wants to know how come public relations executives are asking such basic questions. I know that's probably because there are few PR professionals in attendance. It's a misconception about the day that needs to be cleared up, right along with the misconception that you need to be a journalist to attend. All battles for another day.

I come to the evaluation forms that rate the panel I moderated. Only two people actually scored my performance. One said, excellent. The other, poor.

My email chimes. Mendelson drops a line, to let me know a nice lady at the hotel found his day planner.

He got his life back.

I break even, and the Starbucks is still hot.

The Search For Truth

Having just spent days upon days in Memphis, where the topic of media reform drew 3,000 people like moths to a flame, I'm left wondering what's more dangerous: media or media reformists?

One thing the media knows how to do is get your attention.

So, when media reformers want your attention and use media techniques to get it, are they truly reformers? Or, are they as guilty as the media they so adamantly denounce, using the same spin and propaganda methods as Bill O'Reilly to create disinformation and issue distortion?

A topic such as media reform draws activists of all types. The reason is simple: Whatever it is that ails you, it's the media that must be blamed. As witnessed here, in the city that lays claim to birthing the civil rights movement, what's ailing America is a cornucopia of angst, suspicion and distrust. Anyone who's been to the movies in the past few years knows Hollywood has responded to what's on your mind by producing a slew of conspiracy theory films.

According to the literature circulating here in the Memphis convention center, what you're missing from your life is the truth. But, here, on this cold and rainy gray day, you'll find the truth. You'll find the "real truth" behind 9/11 ... the real truth that no one wants you to know. You'll find a plethora of alternative sources for information because, even if you don't know it, you're actually "tired of the mass media's never-ending spins and lies." You'll find help here if you feel the mainstream media ignores you because you're too young, too old, speak English as a second language, are female, gay, ethnic or a free thinker. Should you suffer any combination of the aforementioned afflictions, not to fret. There's help for you multitaskers, too.

Beneath all these subtexts, the real news is media reform is now a hot topic. The controversy over internet neutrality, combined with the recent changes of who's in control in Washington, D.C., has culminated in making media reform the equivalent of the new black for the spring of 2007. Therefore, it should come as no surprise this weekend saw plenty of anti-Bush sentiment and continuous, gleeful bashing of former FCC Commissioner Michael Powell. In between the gluttonous rampage against the media and the government, there were trolley rides, agenda addendums, fried green tomatoes, historic sites like the Piggly Wiggly and the parade of the Peabody Ducks.

Powell, as you may recall, wanted media ownership rules to change so that big media could get bigger. As someone at the FCC nonchalantly explained to me, media in this country is no longer a mom-and-pop-owned operation, so raising the cap shouldn't make a difference. The laissez-faire outlook by the commission, combined with Powell's infinite ability to offend anyone with a brain, resulted in a public outcry by more than 3 million Americans, including the Fair Media Council.

Actually, I think we owe Powell a debt of gratitude. If the public found him even remotely likeable, the media reform movement would not be happening.

Small coalitions are taking shape around the country.

Citizens want to know what they can do.

Celebrities are weighing in on everything from girls not being as visible as boys in films, as Geena Davis does, and George Clooney wouldn't be interested in playing Fred Friendly and producing meaningful works like "Good Night and Good Luck."

All in all, it's a good time to be in the chair I'm in, because things are going to get interesting. I shudder to use the "R" word, with all of its implications and baggage. I prefer "advocacy," since at least it implies something good may come out of whatever efforts are put forth. In the interest of full disclosure, you should know that, within the land of the reformistas, I'm something of a heretic. I actually believe we, as a society, are better off with media than without it. Sure, it's not perfect, but what is? Aren't we better as individuals and a country when we know what's happening on this planet? Haven't we bettered our lot by learning about different cultures and customs, myths and realities?

Now, I can't figure out if such a philosophy puts me so far to the left of the "R" types that they have to turn to their right to find me, or so far to the right they have to look left? Whatever. Actually, I prefer the fringe, anyway. It's worked for me thus far. Apparently, it's the reason for my viewpoint.

It's a viewpoint that was missing in Memphis in January. What's troubling me is how all those reformists failed to notice only one side of a story was being told. It was the most serious case of group think I've ever witnessed. This was not the place for rational discussion. This was the place where we came to worship on the altar that rejects the media as all that's wrong with the world and our lives, and now that we've been absolved of our sins, the gospel choir is paraded out to save our souls in glorious song. This was the uber pep rally, to get the troops ready for whatever becomes the battle du jour. It's rather ironic, all in all, that the stage for this was Memphis, which was once a site of great hope for this country but now is merely a ghost town.

About That Newsday Protest

As appeared in Editor & Publisher

Published: December 13, 2006 12:00 PM ET

'Newsday' Protest Letter Applauded

It was with great interest that I read your story, "More Than 100 at 'Newsday' Sign Protest Letter To Tribune Chair." So much interest, in fact, that I felt the need to write to tell you about another side of the story: The public's side.

I applaud Newsday staffers for putting together a memo that accurately reflects their current situation. More than that, I admire their courage to do so, especially after what transpired at Newsday's sister paper, the Los Angeles Times. The changes cited in the memo -- less staff, budget constraints, more wire copy -- have not gone unnoticed by the public. Quite the opposite.

Not a day goes by when I don't deal with a member of Long Island's 2.7 million community who wants to know how our region can remain vibrant and competitive when our sole daily newspaper has been shaken to its core. Interestingly, the public here is willing to give Newsday a second chance, despite its dubious claim to being home to the largest scandal in newspaper history.

What the public here has lost patience with is stories that have no relevancy to their lives. One of Newsday's hallmarks had long been the investigative pieces that served the public interest. Those pieces, being expensive and requiring skilled talent and lots of it, are seldom done now. In their place we have tales of Britney, Brangelina and other AP Wire fodder. Local news is reduced to transactional reports of companies changing names and the fate of one "cold-stunned" sea turtle.

I have nothing against sea turtles, but this is a community with important stories that need to be told. Those stories take time and research, and staff with experience and acquired knowledge of the area. The public here isn't quite sure why they're reading about sea turtles and other such stories, but we do. We know the corporate mindset to increase profits and decrease expense has been done, as in Newsday's case, to the detriment of the product. What a newspaper product really is has absolutely nothing to do with newsprint, nor its price. What a newspaper is about is its people, and the information those people carry in their heads. It takes skill to gather information; but skill takes money. Skill is what makes it possible for a newspaper to be the first thing Long Islanders see in the morning. Not because they want to, but because they need to.

Long Island's geography makes 2.7 million residents a captive audience. Newsday, as the only daily to service this area, has an incredible responsibility to protect this public's interest. Yet its hands are tied. Perhaps its corporate masters don't care what they pay in taxes, or where that money goes. But Newsday's readers do. They have grown weary of reading a newspaper with no answers. Inside Tribune's Chicago headquarters, they see Newsday's profitability. Here, on Long Island, businesses that have long advertised in Newsday are questioning their return on investment. Let's not forget the part of the equation that advertisers are readers, too.

Perhaps that will get someone's attention.

Jaci Clement
Executive Director
Fair Media Council

Pondering the press and its purpose

From the June 2006 issue of Media Ethics magazine:

Superfluous?

As the coverage chronicled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I couldn't help but wonder: Would I be in the last generation to know America as a superpower?

The recent history of news coverage of current events leads me to such speculation. News coverage, and its purpose, had changed dramatically. With it, my country.

When the attack on America occurred on 9/11, news outlets went wall-to-wall with coverage. Regular programming was preempted. Advertising was eliminated. Tons of newsprint carried the types of images once verboten by newspaper standards. America turned to CNN for breaking news, then to Fox News Channel when information slowed. There, unlimited and often pointless talk filled the void.

It was then that the news and information began to stream across the bottom of your TV set, and along with it, that thing known as the "terror alert" was unveiled.

In one catastrophic event, we saw the best and worst of television spot news coverage: The power of television to bring images into your living room to convey a story words alone could never tell. With it came awareness of the weakness of cable's 24-hour programming, which paraded has-beens and wannabes in front of the American public for scenarios filled with "what ifs" and "could it bes." Rumors and unsubstantiated facts made it on the air, to be confirmed or denied at a later time. Talking heads worked hard, but not hard enough. The heir to Cronkite's throne was nowhere to be found, yet desperately needed.

As cable news jockeyed for position, we witnessed television's commitment to public service: Hundreds of millions of dollars lost due to commercial-free coverage over the course of a few days. Plus, all that overtime, extra staff and equipment needed to cover the crisis in the uncharted territory of the 24-hour news format.

But what both cable and television revealed was the lack of experienced war reporters at work in the field and, with it, the uncertainty of what America needs to know. War dramatically changes the reporting landscape. Only a few time-worn veterans know how much. This is not the same thing as logistical difficulties in actually securing and transmitting the news.

Since then, major weather events around the globe have given rise to a new pecking order among journalists: Weather reporters are to my generation what war reporters were to my father's era. The coverage of the tsunami on the other side of the world forced a higher standard out of meteorologists; one that called for stronger warnings and continuous coverage, no matter the danger of the situation. The joke that weather is for the pretty and the empty headed may be officially put to bed: Weather reporting is now the domain of the alpha dogs.

What then, to make of Katrina and the coverage of her fury? Weather professionals did their jobs, warning days in advance of a major storm brewing. That governmental officials didn't pay attention is to their discredit, not the weather reporters.' Also, as in the Iraq war, news came at its coverage from a new angle--using blogs to give and get information.

Today, everyone with a cell phone, camcorder or blog spot can be a reporter. There's some good in that but mostly, there's a lot of bad. The good is that the public is participating in the process that is the cornerstone of our democracy. The bad is that standards and responsibilities in journalism aren't readily understood by the public at large. Increasingly, we now see those responsibilities aren't understood by professional reporters, either.

We weren't a nation of bloggers when 9/11 happened. And it's too soon to weigh the effectiveness of the coverage of Katrina's natural-disaster-turned-war-zone work. But some interesting developments are in play.

Despite Katrina's standing as the greatest natural disaster to ever hit America, the broadcast networks' coverage was business as usual. This time, it was cable stepping up to the plate, with 24-hour coverage that continued to unfold a developing story. Time for talk, previously the hallmark of cable news channels, was kept to a minimum as breaking news had been nearly constant.

Musings in the blogosphere pondered why the broadcast networks don't feel 24-hour coverage was necessary when it came to Katrina. Was it since the victims of Katrina represent the lowest socioeconomic strata in our society? Would 9/11 coverage been different if New Orleans rather than the New York financial district and the Pentagon had been targeted?

Instead of coverage, many news outlets took to raising funds for the victims. Of course, the victims need and deserve all help possible, but charitable fundraising isn't the job of news organizations. Was this the very moment after which news would never be the same? Why, when people were hungry for information, did the traditional news sources fail them by saying, "Write a check" instead?

Even more striking: Now with Katrina, cable news reporters had starting asking -- and demanding -- answers from politicians. The big surprise to this was the reaction that came from bloggers, who began to accuse the news media of suffering from a "loss of objectivity" in covering their stories -- and, of course, poaching on their territory.

Apparently, the fact that asking the tough questions is entirely the domain of the news media is so far out of the public's consciousness that even when the media succeeds in doing their job they are accused of failing. Perhaps the blame should be laid upon the period we call political correctness, which turned into an excuse to whitewash reality with softball questions.