Archive for the ‘News’ Category
Rep. Patrick Kennedy Calls Lack of Press Despicable
Thursday, April 1st, 2010Preliminary Results: Survey Takers Tackle News Funding
Saturday, October 24th, 2009The biggest question in journalism today: how do you pay for the news? Headlines warn of impending doom because today’s business model where advertising supports free news seems to have crashed. Those seeking answers from conventional wisdom declare that people will never pay for something they’ve traditionally gotten for free, but pressforthePeople survey takers seem to disagree.
We asked: “What business model would you be willing to support to guarantee that you and others have access to high quality, rigorously non-partisan, and original news reporting about issues you care about?”
The possible answers were:
I think journalism should always be free and fully supported by advertising.
I think journalism should always be free and fully supported by the government.
I think journalism should always be free and fully supported by volunteer contributions.
I’m willing to pay a modest monthly fee, perhaps as much as a coffee drink, to guarantee that truly independent reporting occurs on issues that I care deeply about.
I’m willing to pay a little more per month, perhaps as much as a dinner at a restaurant for one, to guarantee that truly independent reporting occurs on a range of issues that are important to society.
I think the answer is a combination of the above.
I think the answer is something entirely different from the options listed above.
Survey Takers said They’d Pay:
One-out-of-three survey takers volunteered that they would pay a subscription fee as a primary guarantor of their access to reliable, non-partisan information. A combined one-in-ten said journalism should be free and fully supported by either advertising, the government or donations.

The willingness of pressforthePeople survey takers to pay for news is more dramatic when it is part of a collection of revenue streams meant to guarantee the existence of reliable information in the future. Eight-three percent of survey takers either opted for subscriptions as the outright solution or as part of a solution that also included revenue from advertising, government and donations.

We asked our survey takers to explain their opinion, and many dove right into an issue that seems as difficult for news consumers to answer as it is for news companies to solve.
Bob Pendleton of Alameda, California says journalism should be free and supported by the government. “It’s taken me years to lose faith in advertiser-supported journalism. But I have seen so many examples of biased reporting that I must blame advertising. In a country with a vibrant democracy, government-supported journalism can work, because the interest groups will keep journalism honest. But this model would not work in a dictatorship.”
One survey taker from Havana, Florida advocated for a completely new model: “I like the approach that part of the purchase price of certain items (radios, TVs, computers, books, kindles, etc.) be used to finance media — along with government sponsored tax breaks as another source of funding. Caveat being that news sources that are funded in this way MUST be assiduously nonpartisan. If you want to finance partisan, that must be paid for totally privately and labeled as such.”
“Many people used to pay for their news in the form of the local newspaper, but when reporting became shoddy and irrelevant they stopped paying,” wrote one Texan who supports a subscription price for news. “I believe in capitalism, so I believe if someone offers a valuable service such as unbiased journalism, the market will pay a fair price for it. I also believe in the real time shift of news to an Internet environment, which is another reason for the collapse of the daily newspaper.
“This is the million-dollar question,” writes Bonnie Marshall of Minneapolis, MN. “I do not, at this time, have a definitive answer. I do know that we get the journalism we deserve, and so far we haven’t paid for anything other than subscriptions (that are then used to build advertising formulas). I think there should be a diverse income stream of both public and private support. Check in on how this model is doing: http://www.minnpost.com/ I believe after 1-2 years they are making it with private support, but they cannot afford to pay their reporters a living wage. Even the St. Pete Times is struggling with the private support they have. These are the difficult questions of post-modern America. Our information is fractured and muddy and overly commercialized. Our democracy is at stake.”
Our democracy is indeed at stake, and we need your help. Please add your comment to this conversation. If you haven’t taken the survey, please take it now. If you have taken the survey, please invite friends and family do the same. We feel an informed public is at the heart of democracy, and more than anything, our goal is to find a way to guarantee access to quality reporting on issues that impact our lives.
Paul
Voices of the People
Friday, October 9th, 2009Our survey asks poll takers to “please tell us what you think is right or wrong with the news media today.” You can answer this question by taking the pressforthePeople survey. Here’s what some of your neighbors wrote.
“When the the stockholders’ bottom lines become more important than the product they deliver, then that product dies,” Steve Daniels of Dallas, Texas answered. “If that product is the ‘fourth estate,’ then you risk a country as we know it dying.”
Finances were also on the mind of one respondent from Boerne, Texas. “With the exceptions of National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System, the media seem to be suffering from a “bottom-line” mentality. All that are attempting to do actual news reporting are losing financial support. Most seem to be pandering to their particular audience and stopped being objective long ago. Even those that make some attempt to tell both sides of an issue mistakenly give equal weight to each extreme and make little attempt to distinguish outright falsehood from truth.”
The idea that simply including two sides of a story approximated accuracy bothered a lot of people who took the poll. “With the media, everything is black or white,” Thomas Moon wrote. “For instance, if there is a discussion on major media networks, it is deemed “balanced” if a Democrat and a Republican go at each others’ throats. The media no longer mediate civil discussions on any topic. Moreover, they tend to exacerbate the possibility of unrealistic scenarios by the all-too-frequent teaser (ex: Will mouthwash give you cancer? Answer at 11.) As a scientist, I abhor most media outlets with the exception of NPR.”
Jeanne Burns expressed similar concerns by writing, “I’m frustrated that “fair and balanced” reporting equals the same coverage on all sides. For instance, I was at a rally where there were probably 20,000 people, and I saw 20 counter-protesters. But they got as much coverage in all the news outlets as we did. This applies to any public debate going on–the media doesn’t dig deep enough to get at what the real issues are in a debate. Someone on the right says “Obama isn’t a citizen,” and it gets coverage. Someone calls a public health care option “socialist” or “communist,” and the media leaves it at that. The same thing happens the other way around too.”
“I feel that the media today are only giving us the stories that they think we want to hear. I’m tired of hearing biased reports and half stories. I want the whole truth on subjects that matter to the American people. I don’t care about Kim Kardashian’s sister getting pregnant. I don’t care if Jon and Kate Plus 8 are getting a divorce. I don’t want over-sensationalized stories or scare media (as in H1N1),” Jennifer Thorndyke commented.
The comments about the media weren’t all bad, though. One respondent complimented a specific journalist from Austin, Texas. “I think Jim McNabb does a nice job of reporting what’s going on in Austin with his blog. He’s a journalist with ethics who knows there are two sides to every story,” Cathy Conley wrote and she wishes others upheld the same high standard. “Journalists are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Journalists are taught about libel and slander. I am a former reporter who later taught reporting classes. I told my students I did NOT want to know their religion, political affiliation, or even their favorite food because they had to be objective reporters of fact.”
The media can change for the better, and you can help. Join the conversation and please spread the word so that others can also speak up.
Public TV & Radio get Highest Marks
Thursday, October 8th, 2009pressforthePeople survey takers gave high marks to the journalism produced on public television and radio. Seventy-two percent called the public product either solid or exceptional journalism. National papers also fared well. Thirty-seven percent rated the reporting as solid journalism. So far, our survey takers did not rate the stories produced on Network or Cable TV newscasts as highly. In both cases, nearly seventy percent found the television work lacking substance or excruciatingly bad.




Please voice your opinion on the media by taking our survey.
Rating Local Media – Preliminary Results
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009Six percent of our survey takers thought their local newspaper was doing a good job. While that sounds abysmal, it is better than the four percent who complimented the work done by their local commercial radio station. Granted, about 60 people have completed the survey so far, we need more… far more… please help us by taking the survey and asking your friends to do the same.

Teresa Tosi of Memphis, Tennessee took our survey, and wrote: “The real issue is that the good reporters have been laid off and the bad ones are reporting on the web. There are no ethical boundaries on the Internet and fallacies mix with facts leaving the reader to try and determine the truth. In mainstream TV media, everyone’s trying to outdo the other guy with hype and shock value and no one’s shocked anymore. We’re bored. With radio – you’re kidding, right? They get their news from the paper. And, the paper, well, they have laid off half the staff and are doing the best they can with the wire services and the few people they have left – way overworked and underpaid. Need I say more?”

Nigel McGregor of Heath, Texas, complained “There is too much opinion interjected into what used to be called a “news story”. Now everything has some spin on it for one side or the other. I just want the facts – I can decide from there.”
“There is little discipline in journalism today,” survey taker David Walker wrote. “There is, understandably, little trust or respect for those currently working in journalism.”
Another survey taker asked us not to use his name, but said, “Journalism as a model for business hasn’t changed but the world has. In particular, the increased accessibility and connectivity of the developed nations has created an environment that increases the ability of delivery services to pander to broader tastes. Broader delivery encourages blander content for larger consumption and more prominence to extreme views (as they are interesting) Glen Beck – do I need to say any more?”
Can you envision a new business model for journalism that you would support and that would produce trustworthy, accurate, local news on issues of great importance to you? Please join our conversation by leaving a comment or by taking our survey. And also, please help us spread the word. The more participation we get, the better our chances at making a difference.
Voices of the People
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009Our survey asked what People thought was wrong or right with the media today.
Stephen Kline, a news professional from San Antonio says; “The news media today is not concerned with what makes a good story or how it affects people. They seem to be more concerned with hitting a certain demographic or how to get more people to watch. The real losers are the viewers who get less substance and more flash. I’m tired of Jesus in the tortilla stories and there is no such thing as a Chupacabra. Stop wasting my time.”
From Grand Junction, Colorado, Michael Paxson weighed in on local news, “Most local stations appear to be cutting costs, hiring “kids” just out of college and letting most of the solid, experienced journalists go. At the same time the local stations seem to be more like “info-mercials” rather than reporting substance. Personally, I have all together stopped watching local news and get the news I crave from the internet or specifically from “The Week” a national news magazine. Occasionally I do watch CNN but it seems they too are pandering to sensationalism with hokey series repeated over and over again.
Jim McNabb worries about the cost of journalism layoffs, “Both at the national and local levels, traditional media are trying to do more with less. At the national level, media have closed bureaus overseas and laid off the people. Layoffs at the local level diminishes the quality of the reporting too. Layoff or otherwise lose a good reporter, you lose contacts, knowledge, and goodwill that cannot be built back quickly if ever.”
“Local TV feeds the monster,” wrote John Jury of Kentucky. “Translated, it must fill several hours per day with content, mainly whatever is easy to cover i.e. crime or tragedy. It lacks overall veteran experience for the most part. Multi-part series exposing some agency during sweeps months are rare.”
How would you rate the local news media? Please join the conversation by leaving a comment, or better yet, take our survey and help us Press for the People.
Survey Takers Give Poor Marks to Local TV News
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009It doesn’t look good for local television news. After week one, 90 percent of survey takers rated the quality of local television reporting as either mostly lacking substance or excruciatingly bad.

So far, only a few dozen people have taken the survey. Together, we can improve the quality of reporting throughout the country, but we need your help. Please begin by taking our First Steps survey.
Only have a five minutes? We still want to hear your Quick Thoughts.
The News Died Today: Let’s Go Save the World
Monday, October 5th, 2009This was originally written and published in March 2009, while I was studying Digital Media in a class taught by Nicco Mele at the Kennedy School. It was used then, as now, to ask for help turning an idea into a company.
Death brings sadness. There are a lot of sad journalists.
Death’s shadow hovers like a cloud over news organizations. Its sickle slices down to cut out victims. In the industry, a plague-like sickness weakens us all. No one is sure who next will feel the blade. As February faded, the Rocky Mountain News died just 55 days shy of its 150th birthday. Three weeks later, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published its last newspaper. How many more will fall before year’s end?
We could wallow in grief.
Alternatively, we could throw an old fashioned New Orleans Jazz Funeral. Play the dirge for the march to the cemetery, say goodbye, and cut the body loose. Pump up the volume for a jazzy celebration on the way home.
What’s to celebrate? For one thing, the noble calling of the recently departed, which just so happens to be our own calling, journalism. As members of this industry, we believe in the crucial importance of our craft. Simply put, journalism protects democracy.
Without journalists, Richard Nixon would have been President for 8 years.
Without journalists, the torture would have continued at Abu Graib.
Without journalists, the world would not have watched the tank man’s defiance in China, or heard Ghandi’s message, or seen the dogs bite in Birmingham.
I could go on.
While the technology is changing, and newspapers and television seem strangely dated, the need for journalism is as great or greater now than ever. Also, the hunger for journalism is as great or greater now than ever.
People didn’t wake up three months ago and decide they didn’t want to know what was going on in their world – a world filled with economic uncertainty, military hostilities, and threats of global warming disasters. Credible information is of dire importance.
So, if there’s a great demand on one hand, and a dramatic loss of supply on the other hand. What does that mean? I contend it means there’s a Market Opportunity. Fire up the band, we’re not only celebrating the noble cause lived by the recently departed. We are also celebrating historic opportunity.
Every so often, a seismic shift comes along that changes the world and those who are alive in those moments have a decision to make. My friend Andy Hoar put it this way: when the car was invented, those in the carriage industry had to choose whether to keep making wagons for horses or to add a gasoline motor to the wagon and put the horse to pasture. Technology changes. We either thrive in the future or die in the past.
Let’s thrive by creating the new journalism model for the future.
Let’s put this new technology to work to find better ways to practice this noble calling.
Let’s succeed not only as reporters, but also as businessmen.
Democracy is waiting and depending on our success.
If you’ll join me in this quest, please take our survey, and tell us how you would like to be informed in the future.
Uncle Barky Helped Tell Others
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009Continuing our story. After I sent coworkers a letter explaining my decision to leave my job, Dallas/Fort Worth Television Critic Ed Bark was kind enough to do a story on why I was choosing to take a different path. Please check out his daily blog at unclebarky.com. Journalist Ed Bark serves as an inspiration for us at pressforthePeople. He followed a similar path. He also left the mainstream media, where he had worked for decades, in search of an outlet where he could critique the media with complete integrity.
Uncle Barky’s Bytes
News, views, and reviews from TV critic Ed BarkReporter Paul Adrian heading for Harvard, leaving Fox4
05/22/08 12:36 PM
Paul Adrian hopes to reinvent himself and his beat. Photo by Ed Bark.
By ED BARK
One of Fox4’s best and brightest, reporter Paul Adrian, will be leaving the station in late June to study for the next year at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.He then plans to return to his native Texas with an eye toward reinvigorating the lost art of covering state government.
Adrian, 40, hopes to set up his own independent unit of print and broadcast investigative journalists. That’s an ambitious undertaking, but Adrian figures the field is wide open, particularly in TV news.
“It scares me that so many people are leaving TV journalism,” Adrian says in an interview with unclebarky.com. “My goal is not to get out. My goal is to get into this field more deeply. I’m taking a big risk. It’ll be either a really smart thing I’m doing or a really dumb thing. But I’m willing to leave what’s been a wonderful job to go and try to become a better reporter.”
Adrian, who joined Fox4 seven years ago, stressed that he’s not unhappy with the station. But he’s disheartened by his profession’s growing disinterest in covering the Texas state legislature, whose decisions have far wider-ranging implications than live overhead chopper shots of the latest car wreck or police chase.
“Typically now, it’s a quick hit,” he says of state government coverage. “We’re down in Austin, the session opens and we’re back. It’s not Fox4’s problem. It’s an industry problem. We’ve collectively decided not to invest in this coverage, and it bugs me.”
In his letter of resignation, Adrian praised Fox4 news director Maria Barrs as “a great boss.”
“In my estimation,” he said, “the KDFW-TV news department has more going for it than any news team in the city and most in the country. I attribute a lot of our success to your leadership and your support of hard-hitting, in-depth journalism.”
His most recent investigative report for Fox4 was on the effectiveness of state tort reform enacted in 2003 to curb “frivolous” malpractice suits and keep doctors from leaving Texas. It’s not a subject that quickens the pulses of most news managers or viewers. But Adrian made it work in times when stories on miracle diets and new breakthroughs in cosmetic surgery are both encouraged and heavily promoted.
“Government is at the heart of the stories that I’m proudest of over the last seven years,” Adrian says. “But for better or worse, what we grew up with in television news is changing. So I’ve got to figure out, ‘How can I keep my craft alive?’ If I’m not at peace with myself, I’m going to be frustrated.”
Adrian and his wife, Jade Kurian, a reporter for the HD News network, have a 17-month-old daughter named Lark. They’ll mostly remain in North Texas while Adrian commutes back and forth for the next year.
“Any absence from journalism is going to create a longing to go out and do what I love to do — shine a light, expose problems and try to nudge our political leaders to do the right thing,” Adrian says.
Upon his planned return, he’ll try to do just that as an entrepreneur who hopes to service a wide range of broadcast clients.
“I hope I’m aligned with somebody in every TV market in the state,” Adrian says. “I just don’t think you can be informed enough on what’s good government and what isn’t.








