Media and Politics edition...
Harris County Judge: Ed Emmett [The Artist Formerly Known as Mrs. White, Chron.com] - The correct endorsement, based on qualifications, but no mention of whether or not Andrea Georgsson, she of the dodgy journalism ethics was allowed to participate in the endorsement process.
The reason this is important is that it opens up the endorsement to doubt, and weakens its impact.
Was Emmett endorsed soley to make it appear that the Gerogsson donation did not effect the process?
That's the question Mincberg supporters could be blaring across the media today, should they so choose. If I worked for the Mincberg campaign I'd trumpet the fact that Georgsson DID make a donation, and call into question the entire endorsement process of the Chronicle editorial board.
The Artist Formerly Known as Mrs. White could go a long way to restoring credibility by opening up the interview process. Kevin Whited over at BlogHouston has called for this, and I echo the sentiment. Podcast candidate interviews and all of those "closed door meetings" with local newsmakers. Let the consumer hear the responses in context, minus the filter. It's the least we can expect from an organization that demands to be shielded from prosecution, and who trumpets open government time and time again.
For many people in America the press is their primary window to the Government, especially local Government. If you want to increase the transparency of Government, then start by decreasing the media filters that exist between politicians and the public.
It could be argued that the time of the "unsigned editorial" has passed. Nameless, faceless opinion with no onus for getting it right are out of favor. People want to know the credentials of the individuals providing advice. People have a right to know if the people giving said advice Have a Dog in the hunt. The only way to ensure that is to open up the process and shine a light on the newsgathering process.
Heck, it might even go a long way to polishing the tarnished reputation of the news media.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Come on, Patch Eye. How can Kevin Whited call for full disclosure from a private company, especially the meetings of the editorial board?
Although on the righteous side of many issues, Sir Publius the Private cannot mount his high horse about this matter because he, too, likes to keep some things candid.
For example? For example, what is the name of BigCo, where Kevin claims to have a job but doesn't "care to name names."
Bravo to Kevin for reporting on Andrea-gate. It's a keeper.
But deploying Kevin as an advocate for "full disclosure" is akin to using Democratic strategist Dick Murray as a "political analyst."
Not the same at all. Neither Kevin (nor I) charge for our product, nor do we have the access that the Chron has to public officials.
Comparing Kevin (and my) refusal to publish our places of employment is nowhere near the same as the Chronicle refusing to open up their editorial process.
For one, the Chron (and Hearst Corp) ARE the employer, and they are in the news gathering and reporting industry.
My company is NOT in the business of political opinon, therefore who they are is not of import to this blog. Unlike the Chron however, when I write on oil and gas matters I fully disclose that I am, in fact, employed by an oil and gas company. That's far more disclosure than the Chron offers up in many cases.
Besides that, this is not an issue that focuses on "honesty" or "public dollars" it focuses on trust and quality of information.
Right now the Chron is getting close to zero on the trust meter. Their endorsement process is deeply flawed and has been compromised, and their news reporting is suffering because of that. Increased access into the process would not only help restore the trust, but it would allow readers to see whether or not the "neither right nor left" stuff is bunk or no.
No one is asking the Ed Board to offer up details on their spouses place of employment, or offer up personal information. But when Jeff Cohen's wife is publically on the board of an anti-death penalty group, that should be released to the public because they should know where the slant is coming from that drives the news. You don't have to say WHICH charity is driving their slant, but its good to know the slant is there.
Besides, the Chron is about making money. Podcasts of those ed board interviews would be popular.
I should add to that:
Many would say that I'm a bad guy to be on the "full disclosure" bandwagon, since I refuse to post my place of employment as well.
To each their own view.
** Come on, Patch Eye. How can Kevin Whited call for full disclosure from a private company, especially the meetings of the editorial board?
Although on the righteous side of many issues, Sir Publius the Private cannot mount his high horse about this matter because he, too, likes to keep some things candid. **
Candid? I think you meant to write the opposite. Doh! But I digress.
Isn't it interesting how some people can never discuss the actual topic of a post, but must resort to the personal?
Why in the world would the topic here be Kevin Whited?
Why in the world wouldn't the topic be the one that was raised?
A private company can certainly do whatever it wants. No argument from Kevin Whited! So going down that road leads to a dead end.
BUT... here's a point that might be of interest to a thinking person who knows something about the history of journalism and the news industry... Once upon a time, the editorial board screening process probably served a useful purpose. Information was expensive, and not easily disseminated. Recommendations from trusted sources mattered.
Is that true today? (Really, the question I had hoped thinking people might address)
Information isn't expensive today (in my view). Access is a little expensive still (although even the dedicated hobbyist can get it -- look at Charles Kuffner's interviews). But people crave information, and information is cheap. Yet newspapers seem to think they need to guard information, and to parcel it out as they see fit, like they did in the old glory days (you know, before Craigslist and other services came along and killed the huge-profit-margin cow). And certainly, that's their right.
But Chron.com really has tried to embrace podcasts and video and breaking news. Give Jeff Cohen and the tech guys credit for that. The editorial board hasn't, though. The editorial board still has access to newsmakers, but they don't write particularly well and their opinions aren't all that relevant (they aren't an editorial page that can be said to "matter" in the same fashion as, say, the WSJ or NY Times). So why not post interview podcasts? Open up those meetings somewhat and attract readers/listeners?
Or not. If it doesn't work, the industry is still going to be in decline. Try something else. What is there to lose?
Do you have any thoughts on those topics, or are your thoughts just confined to two words that have little to do with those bigger questions (Kevin Whited)?
** For example? For example, what is the name of BigCo, where Kevin claims to have a job but doesn't "care to name names." **
For someone with research skills, it's really not that hard to figure out. I've mentioned my background, what I do, and the industry in a number of places. I've indirectly even mentioned the company. It's not at all related to the sorts of posts I do on local media/politics, so I'm not sure why it's relevant -- to this post or to my posts.
** Bravo to Kevin for reporting on Andrea-gate. It's a keeper. **
I'm glad you liked it. But it's not really related to the bigger questions raised by this post either, except as background.
** But deploying Kevin as an advocate for "full disclosure" is akin to using Democratic strategist Dick Murray as a "political analyst." **
Are you reading-challenged? Because Cory didn't deploy me as an advocate for full disclosure. He's a guy who was nice enough to put up a link and said he agrees with me that the Chron ought to open up those editorial board meetings -- for THEIR benefit (to restore credibility). I also think it's to OUR benefit (intelligent news consumers want information, not screening). We've both explained why we think what we do, yet all you seem to want to do is talk about me. Why? Aren't any of these other topics interesting to you? Because I think they're much more interesting. Do you not have any opinion on them?
BTW -- those who use Murray as a source should mention his Democratic ties. But the man knows his American politics (especially parties), and the man probably knows more about individual area voting boxes than anyone in Harris County. If anyone disputes those assertions, I'd love to hear why, because that would potentially be an interesting conversation as well. But I do think it's relevant that he now chooses to deploy his considerable knowledge for the benefit of a party.
** Besides, the Chron is about making money. Podcasts of those ed board interviews would be popular. **
ding ding ding!
There's the winner.
Not only would they be popular, but they would "refine and enlarge the public views" (to borrow from an old favorite). And once upon a time, newspapers viewed that as an important part of their mission. (As an aside, many companies, public and private, have mission statements *smile*).
** Unlike the Chron however, when I write on oil and gas matters I fully disclose that I am, in fact, employed by an oil and gas company. That's far more disclosure than the Chron offers up in many cases. **
When it comes to trusting (or not trusting) any blogger, readers have to decide: 1)whether the blogger has disclosed enough info about his background to be trusted as a fair commentator and 2) whether the power of the commentary is sufficient in itself, or 3) some combination.
There are bloggers who tell everything about themselves (including every meal) that I wouldn't find compelling on many topics. And there are completely anonymous bloggers I find compelling becuase of their ideas, even though I don't know their background. *shrug*
In the case of the suggestion that the Chron editorial board should offer up podcasts (and a blog) -- I'm not sure what personal background has to do with anything. Good idea? Bad idea? Why? Why not? Discuss.
Post a Comment