Monthly Archives: November 2011

Another milestone

By Chris Daly

Congrats to the ancient and estimable Atlantic for passing this key milestone on the way to the future: According to today’s NYTimes, the great old magazine now derives more of its in-coming revenues from on-line ads than it does from the advertising in the printed version.

The good news here is that the crossing of those two trend lines virtually assures the Atlantic’s survival well into the digital era. The bad news is that it may hasten the demise of the print edition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine a magazine that included among its founders a poet (Emerson) who wrote such lines as these:

“Things are in the saddle and ride mankind.”

or,

“All history becomes subjective; in other words, there is properly no history; only biography.”

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Journalism, journalism history, publishing

Not to be missed

If you like spreadsheets (and who doesn’t?), then you will want to watch this video, which co-stars my next-door neighbor and tech guru Dan Bricklin.

Congrats, Dan.

Leave a comment

Filed under computers, Uncategorized

Boo who?

By Chris Daly

 

Of course, right-wingers have the right to boo Michelle Obama and Jill Biden (as can be heard on this CNN clip from a recent NASCAR event).

But folks on the right should have the decency to acknowledge that when other people do the same thing to “their” first families, it is hypocritical to denounce that booing as “unpatriotic” (a favorite right-wing meme) or “disrespectful of the office.”

Either our leaders are fair game or they are not.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, President Obama

“There’s nothing to see here. Move along.”

By Chris Daly 

Just to be clear: It is never OK to arrest a journalist (except in rare cases where the journalist is actively engaged in some activity that is a crime, like committing arson on a day off). When a journalist is working, the police have a positive duty not to interfere. The arrests of the journalists covering the Occupy movement are violations of their Constitutional rights. More importantly, those arrests violate the absolute right of the people to be informed about what John Adams called “the character and conduct of their rulers.”

To repeat, the First Amendment says:

“Congress shall make no law …

abridging the freedom . . . of the press.”

End of story. The founders left no wiggle room there. James Madison did not write, “Make no law unless it would be convenient to impose a news blackout.” He did not write, “Make no law unless you think you can get away with telling the people you are arresting journalists for their own safety.” 

Shame on those cops. Shame on their chiefs. Shame on those mayors.

Discipline the cops. Fire the chiefs. Recall the mayors.

Those things won’t happen, of course, so it’s up to the journalists on scene. Report, report, report. Take names and badge numbers. Call your lawyers. File suit.

Shoot video. Take pictures. Get audio.

 

[Yes, of course, I realize that there is another side to this argument: It is ludicrous to say that all journalists have an unlimited right to descend en masse on every crime scene, disaster site, drug bust, surveillance stake-out, courtroom, grand jury room, and so on. But that’s not what’s at stake in the Occupy arrests. These are not secret, investigative police actions. These are important public-policy matters, playing out in public (Yes, Zuccotti Park is private, but that seems like a technicality at this point, since the occupation is infused with such a public interest in its outcome). It is also disingenuous for police, when they start making arrests, to declare the area a “crime scene” just because they are making arrests and order all journalists to leave. If the police are allowed to do that, then journalists will never be able to watch the police at work and report about it. That would be a great day for the police but a bad day for everybody else. Even Justice Byron White, no friend of the news media, saw the threat. As he wrote in the majority opinion in the 1972 Branzburg ruling, “Nor is it suggested that news gathering does not qualify for First Amendment protection; without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated.”]

 

Leave a comment

Filed under First Amendment, Journalism, Uncategorized

Media bias? Not so much

By Chris Daly 

Michelle Bachmann, a former flavor-of-the-week in the lengthy, fickle Republican primary campaign for the presidential nomination, has a gripe. Not surprisingly, she is complaining about the media.

This, of course, is a time-tested tactic for Republicans, especially when they are feeling politically desperate. Bachmann claims to have caught CBS News in a “gotcha” moment that she believes confirms her suspicions of liberal bias at CBS. Now, it may well be that there are liberals at CBS, but this episode does not prove her point. In fact, I believe it proves the opposite point.

Briefly. . . As recounted in today’s NYTimes, the guy in charge of political coverage at CBS, John Dickerson, was caught doing his job. He was trying to find an online guest for a show he was orchestrating that would follow the latest Republican debate on Saturday night. In an email to colleagues, he said he would rather “get someone else” other than Bachmann.

His reason? She was “not going to get many questions” and “she’s nearly off the charts” in the polling of voters’ preferences.

(Dickerson’s big mistake was that he included a Bachmann aide among the people in the list of addresses for that particular email, so his thinking went unfiltered to the Bachmann communication director, who then did the professional thing and tried to make hay out of it, in a Facebook blast and elsewhere.)

 

 

Back to Dickerson’s email.

If we look at what he actually said, it appears that his criteria for choosing the guests to pursue were non-political, non-partisan, and non-ideological.

Like any good producer, he wanted a “hot” guest — hot in the sense of someone who is trending, someone who is going to create or amplify buzz, someone who is going to add to CBS’s ratings. He does not want someone who was last week’s news. Simple as that.

And the facts bear him out: Bachmann did indeed get few questions in the debate and little air time, and she is dying in the latest polls. (CBS’s own latest poll had her in 6th place with just 4% support.) That is not to say that she could not surge again; if she does, Dickerson and every producer, host, and booker in politics will be chasing her. Not because they like or dislike her and not because they agree or disagree with her. It will be all about blowing on the hot coals.

In his email, Dickerson could be properly charged with telling “vicious truths.”

Was he ruthless? Yes.

Was he liberal? No.

Even the awful site Big Journalism almost got this right. In fact, the blogger

p.s. For another day: What about Bachmann’s implicit claim? Do the news media formulate common policies, then execute them in concert? (Hint: people in the news media can’t agree on whether to capitalize “president” !)

 

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under broadcasting, Journalism, media, Politics

“Things went wrong. . .”

by Chris Daly 

So said James Murdoch on Thursday in his second round of questioning before a Parliamentary committee investigating his management of part of the News Corp. empire. At the same time, Murdoch insists that he was not in the loop and did not know that phone hacking and other forms of journalistic skullduggery were rampant at the now-shuttered Murdoch-owned tabloid News of the World. (“My goodness, James, where do your reporters get all that material?”) Hmmm. . . .

So far, the younger Murdoch seems to be toughing it out.

 

Here are accounts by the NYTimes, the British Guardian, and (from way, way down the page), the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal

Key question: Can everyone in this story be telling the truth?

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Fox News, Journalism

Ernie Pyle: Everyman exalted

By Chris Daly 

Today’s NYTimes brings a dispatch from Dana, Indiana — a dateline that all journalism historians will recognize as the hometown of Ernie Pyle, one of the greatest war correspondents in American history. The piece is by Dan Barry, who occupies a beat that is similar in some ways to the job Pyle had as a domestic columnist before the war — except that Pyle was expected to come up with a new column every day. Pyle once called himself “a tramp with an expense account.”

It’s a fine piece of its kind. But if you want to know more about Pyle, here are some suggestions. One is to skip the dreary slideshow that the Times offers and instead visit this terrific website maintained by the School of Journalism at Indiana University (a school Pyle almost graduated from). Be sure to see the site’s “photo gallery” and “wartime columns.”

 

 

 

 

Or, you could read the following excerpt about Pyle from my forthcoming book, Covering America.   I have chosen this selection because it gives a glimpse of Pyle before he was famous.

 

From COVERING AMERICA, by Christopher B. Daly ©

 

Ernie Pyle, an Unlikely Hero

As the war drew closer, more and more Americans began facing up to it and thinking about their places in it. One of them was a newspaper columnist in his late thirties named Ernie Pyle. The son of farmers, Pyle left his small town in Indiana and, in the space of a few years, became the best-known and most-loved journalist of his generation.

Young Ernie escaped from his hometown of Dana by going to Indiana University in Bloomington, where he studied economics and journalism and came within months of earning a degree. Before that happened, though, he took a job on a newspaper. Thanks to a recommendation from a friend, Nelson Poynter, Ernie hooked up with the powerful Scripps-Howard company. He was offered $30 a week to work for a tabloid that the newspaper chain had recently bought in the nation’s capital.51 In 1925, he married a freespirited woman named Geraldine Siebolds, who was known as Jerry. Soon after, Ernie and Jerry lit out for the territories. In the spring of 1926, they quit their jobs, sold all they had, and bought a Model T, heading west. They lived out of the car, cooking over an open fire and sleeping on the ground as they treated themselves to a long look at the country. Of all the places they visited, the one they liked best was the high, dry Southwest. A friend described them at the time as “young, wild, unconventional and neurotic,” adding that “they were tearing across the country as if someone was after them.”

Broke, they landed in New York, and Ernie went back to work, as a copy editor at the Post. He didn’t like New York, so he jumped when he got a letter from Lee Miller, an editor at his old paper in Washington. Miller, who was on the rise in the Scripps-Howard operation, offered him a spot on the desk at the Washington Daily News. There, just months after Lindbergh’s historic crossing of the Atlantic, Ernie launched the first regular column in the country devoted to the field of aviation. He spent most days at his desk job, then spent most evenings hanging around at the airfields around Washington and writing his column. While he was busy, Jerry began drinking. At one point, Ernie and Jerry took another long trip across the country. When they got back, his newspaper was facing a problem: the syndicated columnist the newspaper usually carried, Heywood Broun, had gone on a vacation and suspended his column. To fill the space, Pyle pitched in and wrote eleven pieces about his recent trip. Those columns caught the eye of the top editors at Scripps-Howard, and Ernie was rewarded by having one of his life’s wishes fulfilled: he was given his own column, to be filled by whatever material he could find by traveling the USA.

From 1935 to 1942, Ernie roamed the country, through the depths of the Depression, “a tramp with an expense account,” and he made his way to all forty-eight states, as well as Alaska, Hawaii, Canada, and Latin America. He met all sorts of people, from all walks of life. He was not seeking news, he was looking for life–and he found it. Along the way, according to his biographer, the character the world would get to know through the byline “Ernie Pyle” emerged: “a figure of warmth and reassurance, a sensitive, self-deprecating, self-revealing, compassionate friend who shared his sadnesses and exhilarations, his daydreams and funny stories, his ornery moods and nonsensical musings, his settled prejudices and deepest meditations.”

 

His column began modestly, running in most of the twenty-four Scripps-Howard newspapers, although some of the editors shunned him. While columnists like Winchell and Lippmann were reaching millions, Ernie was slowly building an audience in the small towns where Scripps-Howard circulated. “I have no home,” Ernie wrote. “My home is where my extra luggage is, and where the car is stored, and where I happen to be getting mail this time. My home is America.” Like a journalistic Woody Guthrie, he went just about everywhere and talked to just about everyone, celebrating the common people he met. (This came in handy later when he was covering the foot soldiers during the war. Whenever he talked to a sailor or soldier, Pyle would ask the man about his hometown; almost invariably, Pyle had been there, or nearby. Sometimes, he would discover that he knew the man’s relatives or friends.)  His assignment may sound like fun, but it was also hard work, churning out a 1,000-word column every day, week after week. “One story a day sounds as easy as falling off a log,” he once wrote. “Try it sometime.”

Over the years, his columns became more personal, more colloquial, more conversational. An Indiana junk dealer once explained Pyle’s appeal this way: “He comes as near writing like a man talking as anybody I’ve ever read.”

The man who could write like talking was a jumpy bundle of moods, habits, and gifts. He was a scrawny fellow who managed to endure terrible hardships. He had a loveless, childless marriage to a woman he was apparently quite devoted to. He was a hypochondriac who was actually sick a lot. A heavy drinker, he managed to find a wife who drank far more. He was also, curious, sympathetic, and graceful. He could walk up to just about anyone or any group of people and strike up a conversation; he wasn’t interviewing, exactly, he just seemed to be talking, and later on, he would figure out what to use in his columns. He had the reporter’s eye for detail, and a good ear. He was also a self-taught master of simple, direct English prose.

The work on his column was relentless. He was on the hook for 1,000 words a day, which may not sound like that much but is difficult to sustain. It adds up to about twenty-four pages of double-spaced copy a week, or 1,200 pages a year. But that was just the part that showed. To produce that, he usually followed a grinding regimen:

–Go somewhere, find something new, interesting, and original to write about.

–Talk to some people, usually total strangers. Find a quiet place to write. Bang out four pages of copy.

–Find a way to transmit it to the home office.

–Deal with editing changes. Deal with business matters – fan mail, hate mail, expense accounts.

–Check into a motel. Find something to eat.

–Tomorrow, do it all over again.

 

In 1938, Pyle’s career took a big step when his column went into syndication. This was a business decision that meant more than just business. The Scripps-Howard company owned its own syndicate, known as the United Feature Syndicate. It operated like any other: the company acted as a broker, buying material from writers and selling it to newspapers. Usually, this was done through long-term contracts on both ends of the deal. That is, the writer would be obligated to write on a fixed schedule (whether he or she felt like it or not), and the syndicate would distribute the material on a schedule. At the receiving end, the newspaper customers could use the material or not, and they could display it prominently or not. For all writers who work this way, there are three measures of success: the number of customers who contract with the syndicate to buy your work, the amount of money that contract brings in, and the display (or “play”) that your work gets in the pages of those newspapers. A column about chess or sewing might bring a modest income and receive modest play in a regular corner of an inside page. But a controversial or “hot” column like Winchell’s might get a guy on Page 1 and might even make him rich.

For Scripps-Howard, syndication meant that Ernie’s column would now be for sale to newspapers outside the chain, which might dilute its value to Scripps-Howard editors, but it would also mean that the company could make a lot more money from the words it was already paying Ernie to write anyway. Eventually, they ironed out the terms, and Ernie’s column became available to many, many more readers. In late 1939, Pyle embarked on a long trip, from Seattle to California (where he found a bed-making contest in San Francisco to write about, as well as a chinchilla farm), then to New Orleans and on to Central America. That put him in the vicinity of the Panama Canal, which was emerging as a strategic military chokepoint in the growing world conflict. Ernie wrote about it reluctantly. “I hope the office won’t even suggest that I do any military columns down there,” he wrote a friend, “If there’s one thing in this world I hate and detest, it is writing about the Army” . . . .

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under history, Journalism, journalism history, New York Times