Yesterday I spoke at the VON Policy Summit, a conference traditionally focused on VoIP-related issues that now is looking at online media as well. My reaction to the panel, and to the show, can be found on the PFF blog. In short, is Internet video the next VoIP? Yes and no.
A journalism legend has passed away at 86 years of age -- Al Warren, whose last name lives on in Warren Communications News, publisher of Communications Daily, Washington Internet Daily, Consumer Electronics Daily and Public Broadcasting Report, among others. While not the tallest man, he was a giant in the field of trade journalism. He joined Television Digest (as the company was originally known, named after the then-flagship publication) only months after its founding as a young reporter. There was this newfangled contraption called television, and Al Warren set about seeing how those crazy regulators in Washington might seek hegemony over the industry. Lots of publications wrote about television (including TV Guide, which briefly and disastrously owned Television Digest Inc.) but only Television Digest covered television policy. If memory serves, Al Warren bought the company from TV Guide (extremely impressive move for a reporter and employee), and oversaw its growth into the significant presence it is today.
I had the privilege of working on and off for AW, as we called him, for about a decade. I didn't say "pleasure," because while I very much enjoyed working for him, anyone who was on the receiving end of one of his broadsides would not soon forget the experience or describe it as pleasant. It was pleasurable to work in a newsroom that took quality seriously, and that emanated from the top -- AW. As both a reporter and an editor, I had double the opportunity to invoke his ire, and lived in fear of the memo slip in purple pen, AW's signature color. But either due to his mellowing or my slow but real absorption of his instructions, those memos dwindled over the years, and he actually said a kind word now and again when I got a scoop or won an award.
AW was very particular about style. Kiplinger had given the trade press the short sentence and ellipsis. AW went a step further, commissioning the creation of an extremely thick Warren style guide to emphasize brevity. (Remember, this was when newsletters were printed and hand-delivered; size mattered, if you will.) It was this guide that forbade the use of articles (longtime Comm Daily readers will recall we never used "a," "an" or "the"); banned the first names of members of Congress; created a standard for state abbreviations different than the AP style used almost everywhere else; and contained hundreds of other little trips and traps that would catch new reporters or interns and lead to an AW purple memo. But that style did set our copy apart.
Of course, I would argue what really set Warren newsletter copy apart was the quality of its editors and reporters, and in later years AW wasn't directly responsible for that; the task fell to his sons Dan and Paul, along with Managing Editor Mike Feazel. Myself excluded, they've hired some pretty good talent over the years. They've also been entrepreneurial, for example creating Washington Internet Daily. They recognized that Television Digest as a weekly was losing viability and created Consumer Electronics Daily from it, like Athena from Zeus' head. Kudos to AW for being willing to go along with the folding of his flagship newsletter. Paul also gave us Public Broadcasting Report, of which I will always think fondly from my time managing it; the story goes that AW let Paul create it so Paul could get out from under Tack Nail's thumb. (Sorry, can't tell any Tack stories, that requires a book.)
My sympathies extend to Dan and Paul at the loss of their father, and to their siblings and their mother Peggy, who I didn't know well but found exceptionally charming and entertaining. I'm also sorry that some of the current Comm Daily reporters didn't get to work with AW when he was more vibrant. But I do hope that space can be found in the Comm Daily newsroom for AW's massive dictionary, which had its own podium. To me, more than the purple pens, that dictionary symbolized AW's commitment to excellence in the craft of prose. I'd like to think a little bit of his commitment rubbed off on me.
Politicians love to stifle free expression. Congress recently increased indecency fines on broadcasters ten-fold, and now some stations are wary to air documentaries that contain salty language. Some in Congress want to extend those rules to cable and satellite platforms, despite that pesky First Amendment. And the Internet remains a favorite target, most recently social-networking sites.
Totalitarian states remain the poster children of such acts. But other democracies around the world are doing their level best to give U.S. politicians a run for their money. Several examples of this from around the globe are featured in "Do's and Dont's for Global Media Regulation: Empowering Expression, Consumers and Innovation," a Progress on Point that The Progress & Freedom Foundation has published today. It focuses on Canada, Australia and Europe.
In that sense it builds on papers I've written on the Television without Frontiers Initiative (here and here) backed by European Commissioner Viviane Reding. The European Commission Committee on Culture is expected this month to issue a report on TVwF, so despite growing opposition to it among business leaders in Europe it appears not to be going away.
Thus, my paper proposes five reasonable Do's and Don'ts that policymakers in the US and abroad should follow to ensure free expression, innovation and consumer benefits:
1. Do enforce existing child-protection laws.
2. Don't distinguish between types of content delivery.
3. Do harmonize by deregulating down.
4. Don't discourage migration of content.
5. Do support intellectual property rights.
These five principles will help policymakers avoid needlessly regulating new technologies, will avoid skewing the market by favoring one technology over another, but will not prevent prosecution of those engaging in criminal behavior. If applied in Canada, Australia, Europe or the US, everyone will win.
I have written previously about how I feel modern reporting is excessively under fire and brings more value than many believe. I have also defended this view against some hostile forces such as diplomatic staff and spouses and high school students.
Lately still more critics have been contending that "old" media is on its way out. I'll admit, the newspaper industry needs to do a better job of focusing on new delivery methods for its content; The Economist has some good thoughts on that subject.
But it's one thing to criticize a business model, quite another to criticize long-standing methods of gathering and reporting news. That's why these two examples of "new" media got under my skin.
The first is relatively harmless. Wired News, which is a fascinating read but has never exactly been known for journalistic objectivity (like Fox News, they preach to the converted), is experimenting with "wiki" journalism. They've posted a story written by a reporter and they are inviting anyone who wishes to edit it. (At least they ask that the quotes not be changed; how sad they even have to mention that!)
Now I think this is relatively harmless, because it's bound to fail. We've learned that Wikipedia has evolved a heirarchy of contributors and that structure provides at least the hope of semi-quality work; the Wired story will only be as good as its last editor, who could be a nutjob. As someone who was self-employed for six years as an editor, I can't imagine why somebody who is truly competent at that job -- and it is a skilled position -- would waste her talents doing for free what Wired pays others to do. The people who will volunteer will likely think they are far better editors than they really are, and I suspect Wired will pull the plug on this before whatever reputation they have is gone.
This other venture I suspect will also fail, but it offends me more because it shows such a disregard for journalistic principles and editorial standards. It also raises an important question: Does Craig Newmark's paperboy throw his newspapers into his koi pond? If there's a better explanation for his hostility to modern media I'd like to hear it.
Newmark has done more than perhaps any other individual to undermine the finances of the newspaper industry through his free online classifieds service, Craigslist. While bad for newspapers, Craigslist has been good for consumers. Now, however, Newmark is banking on an online venture that will have reporters investigate news only after volunteers have assigned the stories and put forward the funding. This won't be good for consumers. The only likely winners will be well-heeled Internet activists with axes to grind, and savvy public relations officials who bankroll flattering stories.
This "open source" model of journalism, called New Assignment, comes to us from New York University's Jay Rosen, whose reporting background is limited to a college internship. Rosen, with Newmark's money, is creating NewAssignment, where anyone can put forward a story suggestion. Any idea that receives sufficient donations is adopted. A freelance reporter is hired to write the piece, working closely with the web surfers who suggested and funded the story.
Rosen writes that NewAssignment will produce "stories the regular news media doesn't do, can't do, wouldn't do, or already screwed up." He says reporters will work hand-in-hand with online "smart mobs," performing "journalism without the media" but instead with "the people formerly known as the audience." Let's not forget that the smart mobs Rosen refers to are in fact largely a reactive force. A careful reading of political blogs reveals that new lines of discussion frequently are prompted by a newspaper article. If what is on the mind of a smart mob member more often than not is triggered by the mainstream media, why would we count on them to come up with original story ideas?
Still, with the Internet Rosen has found the right place to enlist participants hostile to modern media. "The liberal media is out to destroy our president and our country!" "Our lazy media reprints lies fed it by the Establishment!" That is what members of the "smart mob" routinely post in the comment fields of political blogs.
I'd like to place a bet here - the first story that is pitched and funded at NewAssignment will be an expose on George W. Bush, with the imaginative premise that his ties to the oil industry led us into Iraq. That will trigger the pitching and funding of a second story, one that seeks to document Hillary Clinton as a politician to the left of Vladimir Lenin. I wouldn't want to be the reporter working either of those assignments. Nor would I enjoy the repercussions if the story I produced didn't match the predetermined conclusions of the smart mob, my financiers.
Rosen says reporters don't listen to the average Joe. But no self-respecting reporter would overlook a source with information, whether that source is a high government official or simply someone who knows someone. The advantage of a newspaper reporter, however, is that she and her editor can sift through the sources and facts, make determinations on credibility, and move forward accordingly.
What is a NewAssignment reporter or editor to do when given questionable, possibly biased information by a source, and that source is also the assignment editor and the principal source of funding? Perhaps Newmark is disillusioned by recent newspaper plagiarism scandals. Who isn't? Perhaps he feels reporters are too biased or too passive. Some likely are. But handing over control, from funding to assignment editing, to any individual so inclined to visit a web site does not seem to me a positive direction for journalism.
It's a large leap from Newmark's current web site, which helps one find an inexpensive futon, to the one he's funding now, claiming to provide reliable, unbiased investigative journalism while handing power to the unaccountable. Newspapers have a tough challenge ahead determining how to maintain a positive cash flow in a disaggregated digital economy. Changes will have to occur. But those of us who are consumers of news should want newspapers, and the journalists and editors they employ, to succeed.
It does no good undermining traditional journalism by making grandiose claims about "smart mobs" and "journalism without media." And the 21st century business model for journalism should not include forcing editors and reporters to solicit financial support, while empowering those supporters to provide editorial input from story assignment to final publication.
What's the most creative generation? Andrew Keen proposes the 5th century BC Greek philosophers, 19th Century Transcedentalists or the '68 generation of rockers and uprisers. I'd throw in the late 1700s of the US Consititution, The Wealth of Nations and the "discovery" of electricity; or perhaps the early 1600s of Kepler, Galileo and Shakespeare. In any case, it would be a fun drinking game. But Keen reacted to a claim by Bolt CEO Aaron Cohen that the current mash-up, remix generation is the greatest yet. Sure. Of course. I'd put DJ Danger Mouse above Thucydides, Mozart and James Joyce. I might have been more persuaded if professional content had been included, given the fact that the folks at Pixar have been unquestioned geniuses.
Last week I was interviewed by Shirley Skeel on National Public Radio's Day by Day. I was interviewed on the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I said I supported their work on behalf of reporters, but I was quoted on my dislike of their intellectual property work. It's a good segment, balanced and thoughtful.
Geoffrey Stone has a thoughtful post on the U. of Chicago Law School blog on the issue of the Attorney General wishing to prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act. See posts here and here.
The White House was extremely wary when self-imposed GOP term limits had moderate Arlen Specter take over the Senate Judiciary Committee this Congress. Yesterday was an example of why they were right to be wary, and why it was good that Specter got the job anyway.
The Bush White House and its Justice Department have been eyeing the Espionage Act as a way to evade the First Amendment and punish reporters writing about things they don't want written. What they need to do is keep materials from being leaked to reporters, but it's easier for them to punish the recipient. I've made known in this space my distaste for this approach. It seems not only wrong but unconstitutional. In a hearing yesterday, Specter said as much. Addressing Attorney General Gonzales' contention that the Espionage Act could be used against reporters merely for reporting facts delivered to them, Specter said: "It's highly doubtful in my mind that was ever the intent of Congress."
Cheers to Katharine "Kerry" Close of Spring Lake, N.J., for winning the Scripps National Spelling Bee. This was her fifth -- and final -- appearance, and she beat out some tough competition. The runner-up was another great speller, Finola Mei Hawa, who went out on "weltschmerz." Finola seemed like a sweet kid, but she's Canadian. How is it that Canadians are competing in the "National" Spelling Bee? Oh, great news -- Kerry wants to be a journalist, and write for newspapers (I guess not all kids think print is dead). It's nice to see there are still some young people who haven't given up on the Fourth Estate.
Jeers to ABC for its awful coverage of the final rounds. In the past, the Bee has aired on sister station ESPN, and concluded in the afternoon. But with the success of multiple movies on the Bee, ABC saw an opportunity for ratings at the expense of 10-year-olds. They forced the final rounds to air during prime time -- who can spell "ursprache" at 10 o'clock at night? -- and made the kids sit on stage doing nothing through a ridiculous number of commercial breaks. Next year I hope Scripps says that there will be no commercials; instead they could do product placements, like having rotating digital "signs" appear behind the spellers the way we see ads for Levitra behind the batter's box during baseball games. Let's hope the advertisers are more age-appropriate for the Bee, however.
In my recent talk with diplomats about modern media, the question arose as to how one defines a journalist. Under the First Amendment, we do not in the US have a certification program to be a journalist; anyone can be one. That has been reinforced by a court ruling that finds anyone posting newsworthy information to a web site has the right to protect their sources. I'm not a fan of the Electronic Frontier Foundation when it comes to intellectual property policy, but I'd like to thank them for assisting the defense in this case. I agree with my former colleague Charles Cooper that this is a win for all media, traditional reporters and bloggers alike.
