A Change in the Wind

"Information Wants to be Free"...

Apparently at the first Hackers' Convention, way back in l984, Stewart Brand declared that "Information wants to be free." It's a great phrase, unless you are a writer, a musician, an artist, or another "content provider," in which case the phrase is a ticket to poverty.

The correct translation is, I believe, "people are freaking cheap."

I am not going to recap this media conflict, which now has taken on generatlonal tones, nor am I going to delve into apocalyptic scenarios, like bankruptcy at The New York Times.

But I am going to link to an interesting think piece that heads up this week's Time, How to Save Your Newspaper, that is the talk of the journo world. Walter Issacson argues that this may be the year that we shift from an "unsustainable" -- that is, bound to crash and burn -- model towards a "micropayment" model for information. Well, we can hope. But this comment of his rings so true...

Another group that benefits from free journalism is Internet service providers. They get to charge customers $20 to $30 a month for access to the Web's trove of free content and services. As a result, it is not in their interest to facilitate easy ways for media creators to charge for their content. Thus we have a world in which phone companies have accustomed kids to paying up to 20 cents when they send a text message but it seems technologically and psychologically impossible to get people to pay 10 cents for a magazine, newspaper or newscast.

How true, how true...thus Verizon is making billions from kids texting "R U BORED" to each other in class under the nose of their teachers, and media companies have more readers than ever, but revenues are falling off a cliff.

Progress: What a crock.

Arrrrgggggghhhh.

The Naked Woman and the Violin (cf. Nancy Rommelman)

At a recent panel about the woes of the press in an era of devastating change, the brilliant Tom Rosenstiel (the founder and director of the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism) related a parable he likes to tell about how to attract the public's attention.

He contrasted two characters: a young woman who had devoted her life to playing the violin, and a young woman eager for the public's attention. Challenged to prove themselves in the public square, each went down to the street to show off their talents. The violinist played, and struggled to attract a handful (much as Joshua Bell, one of the world's greatest violinists, struggled to attract listeners at a crowded Metro stop in D.C. last year, as shown in an award winning story by Gene Weingarten). The other young woman went down into the street and took her clothes off and attracted a huge crowd.

In a real-life 21st-century version of this story, a terrific free-lance writer named Nancy Rommelman, now located in Portland, has begun taking her clothes off for money...for a good cause (an Oregon food bank). I couldn't believe she was doing it at first, esp. since she's married and a mom, but check it out...her striptease is real, and she's cute.

But Rosenstiel's story doesn't end after the first day.

Imagine, he says, what would happen on the second day, and the third day, and so on. The violinist would continue to play, and continue to attract a small number of listeners...but over time, if she was good, her audience would grow. In contrast, the naked woman would still attract attention, but her act would grow increasingly stale with each passing day, pushing her towards more outrageous and humiliating stunts. This, argues Rosenstiel, is the fate of the sensationalist press. What works for a day, fades quickly; in contrast, what works over time, gains in stature.

But with Rommelman, one doesn't have to choose. She's very pretty, and very smart, and one can hardly argue with the cause (heck, even unemployed me donated). Give her a chance...

The New Way to Lie in Public: The FDA Likes It!

On the front page of The Los Angeles Times this morning is a sharp story on the the Federal Drug Administration, and its virtually non-existent oversight of a peanut processing plant in Georgia. Because the plant was "filthy" and because the government farmed out oversight to a state agency that looked the other way, hundreds of people around the country have gotten sick, and eight have died.

But for press hounds, the real news is the way the FDA admitted its culpability...in a tiny change in an online reporting document:

The FDA did not formally announce the new findings about the company's testing, but rather made small revisions Thursday to an online report about the investigation. Only when a Washington Post reporter discovered the changes did the news become more widely known.

If you follow the link to the "online report" (a pdf file) you'll see a form with all sorts of dreary details. This is half-admission, half-cover up. The agency was clearly hoping that reporters' eyes would glaze over and no one would notice their culpability. This would have worked, as it probably has worked in the past -- without our knowledge -- had not people around the country died from contaminated peanut products. This forced reporters to pay attention.

This new kind of quasi-lie lie seems to becoming increasingly common in D.C...for instance, the way NASA under the Bush administration casually changed the mission statement, dropping all references to "protecting the home planet."

Only James Hansen seemed to notice, and by then, it was too late.

Why did the FDA misinform this way, even after the demise of the Bush administration? Well, hard-bitten (and witty) Post reporter Dana Milbank, famed for his amusing Washington Sketch, offers a hint, in a freewheeling on-line chat with readers. A reader in Illinois remarks:

Evanston, Ill.: If you lose your job you could become a PR flack for the government or corporate America. A cynic would say most journalists already are. Not the Washington Sketch of course.

Dana Milbank:

As long as I don't have to be the FDA flack at the next killer peanut butter hearing.

Climate Change and the Press: Panel Discussion at Meteorologists Convention

Wednesday at the American Meteorological Society convention in Phoenix, a distinguished panel convened by Bud Ward discussed how the press has handled -- or muffed -- coverage of climate change. Ward recently published a short book on a series of workshops he pulled together over the last couple of years for high-level journalists and scientists, in which they struggled with these very issues. (His book Communicating on Climate Change is available for free at the Metcalfe Institute, either on-line or in the "cellulosic version.")

As Ward mentions in the paper/book, it became apparent that coverage of the issue did improve in recent years, as journalists became aware of what panel member Tom Rosenstiel called the danger of "false balance," which apparently has become a term of art for reporters.

Yet even as coverage in that sense has improved, the press itself has been devastated by new technology and generational change, and coverage of the issue has dropped as papers have cut their pages and their staff.

Tom Rosenstiel, a former reporter for the Los Angeles Times (who wrote what sounds like a must-read book for journos, called The Elements of Journalism, and who now heads up a non-profit Project for Excellence in Journalism for the Pew Center) in no way minimized the threat to serious reporting. Pete Spotts, a veteran reporter and editor for the Christian Science Monitor, highlighted the opportunities available in blogging (but didn't tout his new blog Discoveries, so I'll mention it for him).

Given the chance, I had to ask these once-ink-stained-wretches about the future for free-lance writers such as myself. Rosenstiel suggested that as papers cut reporters, opportunities could arise for free-lancers who developed a speciality and made a name for themselves as individual writers.

But perhaps most encouraging was the dry-witted Larry O'Hanlon, from the Discovery Channel's on-line side, who spoke of the time he was a free-lancer ten or so years ago, and the Discovery Channel cut back. He said he and his peers compared it to an extinction event, in which all the big, established creatures were "wiped out and there were only small furry critters running around." (More prosaically, he explained that staff members were laid off, but free-lancers were only "reduced.")

This combination of responses, along with some encouraging words from Ward in his summation, gave me an emotional lift. And I must report (since no one else will) that the panel smiled when I gave them my own hard-won definition of the difference between reporters and bloggers:

A reporter expects to get paid; a blogger hopes to get paid.

Alaskan Editor on Sarah Palin: "Woefully Unqualified"

Steve Lopez, who has a movie coming out this Christmas called The Soloist, is probably the most popular and best-paid columnist in Los Angeles. He's popular for good reason. He takes on tough issues, including homelessness, illegal immigration, and school bureaucracy, but with bracing good humor.

This weekend he went to Nome, Alaska, to test Sarah Palin's idea that being able to see Russia gives a person a sense for foreign policy. It's a good column (and has a video version, if you prefer video).

But best of all, he introduces us to a crusty newspaperwoman named Nancy McGuire, who wrote her own super-blunt column on Sarah Palin for the Nome Nugget, called Lies Fly (see the editorial on this page).

McGuire is a little like Hildy Johnson thirty years later, if Hildy Johnson after "His Girl Friday" had busted up with Cary Grant and impulsively moved up to the Arctic Circle to start over. She's Ms. No-Nonsense:

Sarah Palin claims she has foreign policy experience because Alaska shares borders with Canada and Russia. Someone please whack her over the head with a geography book.

And:

Sure itʼs flattering that an Alaskan was picked to be McCainʼs running mate. We Alaskans are proud of our state, but letʼs face it; Palin is woefully underqualified to be anywhere near the oval office. It kind of makes one want to go out and find a moose and put lipstick on it.

Lopez, impressed, told McGuire that she might be in line for Secretary of State, since she once actually did come close enough to Russia on a plane trip in college to be chased off by a Soviet MIG fighter.

"I'll go for president," she said, noting that she has more Russia experience than Palin. "I've seen it closer."

Below Steve Lopez tries to see Russia from Nome, but discovers an island in the way.

[Photo by Myung Chun]

Ike Knocks Nation's Largest Refinery Out 'til October

Because Hurricane Ike has blown out power to much of the Texas coast, the nation's largest refinery -- the Exxon Bayless facility, which can produce over 500,000 barrels a day -- will be out of commission at least until September 30th.

That's according to the WSJ, which adds in conclusion:

So while the economy is cheering crude’s plunge below $100, that won’t trickle down to retail gasoline prices for several more weeks at least. If nothing else, that might help keep Congress’ eye on the ball as it tries to salvage some sort of energy package.

The story doesn't call for a specific action, but clearly strikes an anti-Congress tone. The Journal has always been known for its activist editorial page, but I don't recall that pointed a political remark in a business news story before.

The paper also has undergone a radical web design, dropping its association with the iconic white-space design of the newspaper.

Hmmmm.

[pic courtesy of Linbow. She tells about it here]

Mold Warrior Attacks Yours Truly

Interesting: a couple of weeks ago I linked to an LA Weekly story about the battle over mold. I thought it was a fascinating piece, but Sharon Kramer, the controversial "mold warrior" at the center of the story, most certainly did not like it. In her defense (see her comment to the link above) she cites a Wall Street Journal article called "Amid Suits Over Mold, Experts Wear Two Hats," from January 9, 2007, that unfortunately does not appear linkable except in pdf form. Kramer sees the story as vindication: I see it as a writer raising questions (are expert witnesses who question claims of toxic mold truly objective?)

This is the nature of a controversy: Definitive answers are hard to find. Classic example. In the LA Weekly last week, editor Jill Stewart, attacked by Kramer, posts that Bruce Kelman won his libel suit against Kramer on August 27th in a jury trial. Definitive, no?

But the only confirmation I can find on the web is a post at Overlawyered, by a writer who complains he was somewhat misquoted in the original Weekly story, and suggests that if Kelman does win the case, it will be a "Pyrrhic victory." So I honestly don't know if that counts as vindication for Kelman or not.

Readers can judge for themselves if the comments by Kramer fit her description in the original LA Weekly story linked above. She certainly resorts to invective at the drop of a hat. In many years of journalism, in many forms of commentary, this is the first time anyone has ever called me a hack. (In an email) Ouch!

It's No Party at the LA Times

Miguel Bustillo, a first-rate reporter and writer who came up through the ranks of the LA Times, is leaving to take a job with the Wall Street Journal. American journalism is full of LA Times ex-pats: another is  Robert Lee Hotz, was the top writer at the paper on global warming issues before he left for the WSJ. The LA Times hasn't found a real replacement yet, as far as I can tell. The issue is covered haphazardly.

But what's most interesting -- and saddening -- about this news is that Bustillo, like so many readers who happen not to live in Santa Monica or downtown L.A., can't understand why Southern California's best newspaper choose to give up its dominance in places like the San Fernando Valley and Ventura County. The paper was doing a superb job of covering Ventura County, both its issues, its people, and even its artists. Now we're lucky if its issues get an occasional mention in the California section. When even the insiders can't figure this out, you know something is terribly wrong (from Bustillo's parting letter to his friends at the paper, via LA Observed)

I was fortunate enough to work on a lot of memorable stories. But the one that will always resonate in my mind was the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. I was 22 at the time, just starting out. The Valley edition was treated like a minor league affiliate by some of the more pompous denizens of Times Mirror Square. But on that day, the Valley newsroom rose to that challenge like nothing I've seen before or since. It was magic, and as I played my small intern's part in the reporting that day, I knew I had made a good career choice. That Pulitzer was richly deserved. Some of the stringers who contributed to that coverage are among this paper's best reporters today.

I will never understand why the LA Times pulled back from Ventura and the Valley. That was the biggest strategic mistake this paper ever made. I bet anyone who worked in those places, covering local news like I did, would agree.

LA Times: Not Dead Yet

The LA Times announced another round of cutbacks a week ago, and sometimes seems to be committing suicide in front of its Southern California readers...but despite all its financial woes the paper still has plenty of first-rate journalists on the beat. One of their best is Scott Gold, who yesterday wrote a story about my local burb, Santa Paula, that probably no other newspaper in the world could duplicate.

Check the headline: "In Santa Paula, a White Minority Blames the Poor for Town's Problems."

That's telling it like it is.

Santa Paula is a poor town, one of the poorest in SoCal, but it's also a town riven by racial conflict, between the mostly white establishment and the mostly Latino populace. As Gold points out (here), a substantial portion of the town seems to think that the people of Santa Paula are somehow its problem -- as if the folks who work the farms vanished, then the long-gone oil industry would come back.

Bizarre.

I say no other paper could take on this subject, because no other paper in Ventura County would have the guts to defy the wealthy white folk of Santa Paula. (Not all the white people are so craven: John Nichols, an acquaintance, a photographer, a shopkeeper, and a nice guy, dares to speak truth to power in the body of the story, which is well worth reading.)

Newspaper fans, take a look at Gold's lede. A classic.

Many people in Santa Paula, when asked what they do for a living, respond with the name of the fruit that they pick: "Naranja." "Fresa." Orange. Strawberry.

The fields have long defined Santa Paula, literally and culturally. In tidy rows, they stretch 10 miles to the east and west along the floor of the valley in Ventura County. The workers tie little pieces of foil on some crops to scare off the birds. On sunny days, there are thousands of reflections; it looks like they're harvesting jewels.
n the middle is a sweet, tired town of roughly 35,000 people, three-quarters of them Latino and more than half considered low-income under county standards.

For several years, there has been a tide of sentiment that Santa Paula has missed out, that it has become a dumping ground of sagging roofs and 99-cent stores while neighbors like Moorpark and Camarillo have prospered. And some critics -- many of them members of the white minority -- have decided that the poor are the problem.

All this because the town has built decent housing for farmworkers.

Sometimes my people, white people, make me sick.

[photo by Gary Friedman of the LA Times]

The Uselessness of the Instant Expert

David Appell takes Matt Ygleisias, his readers, himself, and the entire blogosphere to task in a memorable rant.

He's got a point: instant experts on any issue can be worse than useless, especially on difficult subjects -- such as drought in the Southwest -- that require more than an hour's reading to understand.

Why am I wasting my time reading this? Nothing Yglesias wrote there matters to me in the least. Nothing about it teaches me even the slightest thing, offers the slightest insight, solves even the smallest problem. I would be far better off reading anything by John Fleck or Charles Bowden or Colin Fletcher or or even Edward Abbey. It's only designed to get him some hits and maybe an appearance on MSNBC some night, and then tomorrow it's off to stories he'll cover equally vapidly.

And anymore I'm finding the entire blogosphere like this. Even what I write. It takes weeks and months and years to understand situations, to write from anything like a position of expertise. You don't get it by quickly flying out to Aspen and back, or by reading an article from the Brookings Institute or from Harvard's 321 course on Environmental Philosophy. It takes blood, sweat, and tears, it takes going out and looking at rivers, pouring over government reports and spreadsheets, hiking to the tops of mountains for the big picture, calling 25 people a day -- precisely the thing the blogosphere does least of.

So I am wondering why I am reading it any more, or why I am even writing meaningless tidbits in this blog (and that's all they are). Or why anyone is reading. Is this seriously the future of this magnificent medium? It would be a full-time job to really blog about a few serious issues on a particular beat, and who can possibly attract 125,000 readers a day and support yourself doing that?

But I disagree, for this reason. We live in a soundbite society. As pollster George Barna told me: "We hear the Federal budget is three trillion dollars a year and we want to understand that in fifteen seconds."

Given this vast chasm between the facts and the willingness of the American public to face them, the blogosphere performs a vital function -- an experiment in how to bridge the gap.

Personally, I think a big part of the answer is more visuals and less snark.