I know the challenges facing the newspaper industry has been of interest on this board. I thought I'd share this link (http://www.ktar.com/?sid=977567&nid=6)on what's going on with tv news. Two Tulsa stations were recently hit with newsroom layoffs.

Okay, I'm confused. Your subject line says 'The plight of professional journalism,' but then your post is about TV news.

90% of news reporting is about bad things that happened. People are just tired of hearing bad news all of the time. I don't think it is any deeper than that. Turn on FOX, CNN, MSNBC right now and there is some crisis going on. Watch the news tonight and it will be murder, rape, and child abuse. It just gets old.

90% of news reporting is about bad things that happened. People are just tired of hearing bad news all of the time. I don't think it is any deeper than that. Turn on FOX, CNN, MSNBC right now and there is some crisis going on. Watch the news tonight and it will be murder, rape, and child abuse. It just gets old.

That ain't it at all, 'least as far as I can guess.

My broadcast news professor back in undergrad put it to me like this: Imagine a car driving down the highway. Now imagine one of the tires blows out. What is the headline? "Tire Blows Out!" or "Three Tires Worked Perfectly!"

People want to know about the bad stuff and the things which might negatively affect them. Folks want to know about politicians, doctors and lawyers who lie cheat and steal. Folks want to hear about their government when their government is putting the screws to them.

When DHS helps a young single mother find a job? That's not news.

When DHS responds to a false allegation, swoops in and puts the wrong kids into foster care? NEWS!

When politicians look out for the people and stand up against special interests? Not news.

When politicians get their hands caught in the cookie jar? NEWS!

The trouble with news, at least in my ever-so-humble estimation is that the news being reported just isn't newsworthy. Memo to TV stations: I really could care less about a shooting at a school halfway across the country, or anywhere for that matter. So long as I ain't shot, it just isn't news to me. I've heard thousands of "shots outside an apartment complex today, two in custody" stories, I'd rather watch House than tune into another.

Newspapers: if I want to read a company's press releases, I don't need the newspaper. I can go to the company's website. Sure, you give a forum for the police blotter to air folks' dirty laundry, a fantastic forum for unscrupulous prosecutors to try their cases in the public eye, and even a perfectly wonderful place for our politicians to parrot what their corporate handlers are telling them to say about a variety of fantastic subjects like tort reform and utility price hikes.

There's no investigative journalism anymore, the Fifth Estate no longer does its job. It's all about profits and ratings.. Perhaps the formulas which used to drive those things no longer work and it's time to get back to the drawing board? Perhaps folks have switched to the alternative media (i.e. blogs) because blogs are willing to investigate things and even publish unfounded (or at least lightly researched) rumors.

Steve, you do a great job on your beat. I know you don't need a lowly pleb know-it-all to tell you, but you really do. Unlike your colleagues, I don't think you have any fear about actually criticizing the folks you report about. I don't think you've gotten too cozy with the folks in your Rolodex and that's what makes you good. Some of your colleagues though? Absolutely, positively pathetic. I hate to say it, but you're one of the few good ones left. Keep up the great work.

NYT's Sulzbeger: "We Can't Care" If Newspapers Die

c|net (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10072968-36.html)

Midtowner - you makes some good points. I still get tired of negative stories all of the time.

My broadcast news professor back in undergrad put it to me like this: Imagine a car driving down the highway. Now imagine one of the tires blows out. What is the headline? "Tire Blows Out!" or "Three Tires Worked Perfectly!"

My headline: "Family Safe after Tire Failure"

Anybody that is interested in the future of the media and how the concept of 'citizen journalism' may fit in, should watch the fantastic Frontline show on this subject, which you can watch and read about here:

FRONTLINE: news war | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/)

I don't use the DO or local news broadcasts to stay informed of local happenings because they report what is either sensational or in front of their lenses. "If it bleeds, it leads," to quote every news director who's ever taken a breath. The video of a stranded motorist being rescued from their car's roof by helicopter - surrounded by raging waters - makes for great TV, but it isn't news, and my acid test is if the same story was reported in the paper or on radio.

That said, in addition to five minutes with the DO and five minutes with the 10:00 local broadcasts, I stay informed by reading blogs and boards such as this one, understanding that there is no editorial supervision or minimum qualifications for those who post. The "self policing" aspect comes from the risk of being flamed or quickly bashed by others who have a better grasp of the facts (which in itself provides greater clarity and expansion).

Locally, I care about what happens at city halls and in the business world, because those things affect me more than a rollover on Lake Hefner Parkway.

I stopped watching local news a long time ago. They do almost zero reporting; generally, it's just stories they've picked up off the news wires or that has already been reported elsewhere. The only exception are some crime/accident/fire stories that couldn't interest me less.

The Oklahoman does a decent job of reporting on local business and sports. They are never going to do much investigative journalism and that's probably not a realistic expectation. I've mentioned countless times that I really appreciate their web presence, their archive and now as an iPhone owner, the way they package their content for mobile access.

Strangely, I think almost all investigative reporting is going to at least begin on the Internet, through blogs and message boards. Yes, for everything that proves out there are dozens of false and sensationalized rumors, but lots of big breaking stories start out on boards just like this, where the ease of access by all and anonymity allows just about anyone to put something out there... And others to explore and expand upon.

This board is a great example. It's very rare that something major is not discussed here before it ever hits mainstream media. And when it is, we often have insiders volunteer information, which is very different than a reporter starting a story and then trying to find the right people to talk to. Often in this medium, they come out on their own and that's usually where the real interesting information is revealed.

Still, we need the traditional media to stand behind their stories and do 'real' reporting. And that's still almost done exclusively by newspapers.

I'm continuing to appreciate this discussion - it's refreshing to see there is an understanding of the difference between a part time citizen journalist and a full time professional journalist. Now, let's take this discussion further ... are any of you aware of an organization named ProPublica?

I have not. Do elaborate...

Steve, I'm familiar with ProPublica.org and read it every once in a while. It's an interesting idea for sure.

But it deals with big, national issues like the campaign and the financial crisis. This is pretty well-covered territory by the traditional media. In fact, those are about the only stories being investigated these days.

It does seem they pick up and run with some stories that are a little outside the mainstream, though. That's a good thing.


But it's all the other, smaller, more localized stuff that is getting less attention. And I expect that trend to continue with the deep cuts at newspapers.

I assume what you are pointing to with ProPublica is the fact that they are non-profit, as well as their focus on investigative reporting? Sounds like a good idea to me, and maybe we'll start to see this concept replicated on the local levels.

Jbrown, that's pretty much what I'm leading to... I'm curious as to whether ProPublica isn't a hint at what's to come, or whether it's a nice idea that will eventually fade off. If I'm advocating anything here, it's that I believe that good professional journalism is vital to a community's well being (obviously I'm biased on this).

Well I certainly see the value of going non-profit in this case. There's still the possibility of some influence from special interests, seeing as they are being supported by various foundations. Nevertheless, that's no worse than a for-profit news outlet having some influence from a major advertiser or a city COC, and probably better. Ultimately, if the solution is dedicated funding for investigative-centric journalism, then I'm all for it.

As for your question, I definitely think this may be the future.

90% of news reporting is about bad things that happened. People are just tired of hearing bad news all of the time. I don't think it is any deeper than that. Turn on FOX, CNN, MSNBC right now and there is some crisis going on. Watch the news tonight and it will be murder, rape, and child abuse. It just gets old.

Read Drew Curtis' book Fark.

The idiocy of the mainstream media is it's entire focus...Plus it's got posts from Farkers in the book. :D

It's short, it's silly, and quite a bit of it is spot-on.

There are some 'real' journalists left it appears.....a news anchor in Orlando had the temerity to ask something other than softball questions to Sen. Biden. Sen Biden was shocked a journalist with real questions 'got through', and was quite condescending to the reporter even calling into question her ability to write her own material. Maybe she should have responded by asking who writes his answers!! But the response from that campaign was to inform that station they would not be "permitted" to interview any of their candidates in the future. So it appears the news organizations are not solely to blame for the lack of 'real' reporting. The political organizations are a large part of the problem too. Unfortunately, too few news organizations have the intestinal fortitude to risk being 'blacklisted'. I doubt this is limited to one of the major parties - I'm sure both of them have done similar things. Only further demonstrates the need to get rid of this stranglehold the two parties have on our political processes.

Here's more (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_columnist_mikethomas/2008/10/barbara-west-hu.html) on Barbara West's interview with Joe Biden. There's a link there to video of the interview.

The reason it looked like she was reading questions blankly is because she was. The questions were prepared by her husband, who is a Florida Republican campaign consultant. She had no idea what she was saying... sort of like Blue Swede performing "Hooked On A Feeling."

But I don't think shes any different in that regard than about 90 percent of the local TV newscasters in this country.

If Obama is elected, the media rooting for him better hope his presidency is full of sunshine and lolipops.

If his presidency is a failure, you can guarantee the American Media as we know it will die a painful death. People will cancel their subscriptions and stop taking in traditional news. They will switch to bloggers, websites where they can select the content and stop reading or watching what they do not like. Few people forget the times in life when they were sold a lemon.

The media (and celebrities for that matter) have forgotten the rule of "Never bite the hand that feeds you." New technologies have now enabled the little guy with the capabilites to do all the cool things that TV, movies, print and radio can do. Soon the big money types will be competing with the blue collar guy with a high speed internet connection.

If Obama is elected, the media rooting for him better hope his presidency is full of sunshine and lolipops.

If his presidency is a failure, you can guarantee the American Media as we know it will die a painful death. People will cancel their subscriptions and stop taking in traditional news.

Oh, please! This has nothing to do with politics. If it did, wouldn't the Oklahoman be flourishing in a state as conservative as Oklahoma? This is about changing technologies and a finite number of eyeballs being spread out over a greater number of choices. News viewership isn't dying. If anything, it's increasing, IMHO. I'd wager that more people watch/read more news from more sources these days than ever before. Heck, just look at where the biggest discussions are on this board. Folks are still interested in news. The problem is that the veiwers are now spread out over, not only the traditional local tv channels and newspapers, but 24 hr. cable news channels, talk radio, weekly newspapers, websites, bloggers, message boards, etc...

If Obama is elected, the media rooting for him better hope his presidency is full of sunshine and lolipops.

If his presidency is a failure, you can guarantee the American Media as we know it will die a painful death. People will cancel their subscriptions and stop taking in traditional news. They will switch to bloggers, websites where they can select the content and stop reading or watching what they do not like. Few people forget the times in life when they were sold a lemon.

The media (and celebrities for that matter) have forgotten the rule of "Never bite the hand that feeds you." New technologies have now enabled the little guy with the capabilites to do all the cool things that TV, movies, print and radio can do. Soon the big money types will be competing with the blue collar guy with a high speed internet connection.

The media will keep on keepin' on. Bloggers rarely influence the news as they don't generate much of it past speculation and commentary done on actual reporting, effectively being just a few more "talking heads" without the visual representation or the wearing of pants. Forums don't really impact the news on a grand scale much either...Excepting for other bloggers and forum members anyway. The "little guys" may be clever, have brilliant insight, unique points of view...But in the end...You're not generating news or reporting the news until you're standing in Lebanon with a camera and notepad. Pretty much the only bloggers that do this are bankrolled by MSM.

As far as Obama's presidency, I'm sure it'll be the same as it will be if McCain wins...Whatever side that loses will blame the winner for all the problems without taking into account the last several administrations successes/failures.

It doesn't matter who wins, they're in for a rough ride in many areas and neither one will have a legacy of lollipops.

The Christian Science Monitor plans major changes in April 2009 that are expected to make it the first newspaper with a national audience to shift from a daily print format to an online publication that is updated continuously each day.
The changes at the Monitor will include enhancing the content on CSMonitor.com, starting weekly print and daily e-mail editions, and discontinuing the current daily print format.