Local Political Debates & Media Coverage

Update (10/23): As predicted, last night's debate was given prominent coverage this morning by the newspaper (front page story and photo) and the TV station (footage and commentary during the morning news show) which co-sponsored it.

I'm about to again reveal my ignorance of the Way Things Work in journalism, and no doubt be taken to task for sticking my nose into business that isn't mine, but I'm puzzled and concerned about how local media outlets are covering – or not covering, to be accurate – public events meant to educate the voting public.

The latest puzzle arose yesterday when all the candidates appeared at a meet-n-greet event, followed by a debate between the two mayoral candidates. If you read this morning's Midland Reporter Telegram, or watched the CBS affiliate's local news program, you might think that these events didn't actually occur, as neither gave any acknowledgment to them. BUT...tonight, there will be an actual debate between the same two candidates, televised and covered in exquisite detail by both of those outlets.

How to explain this? Uneducated skeptic that I am, I suspect it's because yesterday's events were sponsored by the local ABC affiliate, and thus they were deemed unworthy of coverage by the competition. (To be fair, the local ABC website has nothing about tonight's debate, as far as I can tell.)

I realize that the news game is a competitive one, and one-upsmanship is nothing new. However, I can't see how the public is served when media outlets completely ignore events designed to instruct and inform said public simply because they're sponsored by a competing outlet. That seems juvenile and short-sighted.

I'm especially disappointed in the newspaper's lack of coverage, as it seems to indicate a complete mind-meld with KOSA-TV. Any day now, I expect to see something in the MRT's banner indicating that it's been renamed the MCM-MRT. It's one thing for TV stations to compete head-to-head; quite another – again, in my uninformed opinion – for the newspaper to take sides with one of them.

Say what?!

I had despaired of finding either the inspiration or the time to post anything, but the former came in the form of ten minutes of television and the latter is being carved out of the time I usually devote to counting ceiling tiles.

Do you ever really listen to what's being broadcast? If you do, you won't be surprised by the following:

• The anchor on a national news show, describing a "breaking story" about a landslide in California, said that details were sketchy but that they were "efforting" to get more information. Just what we need: yet another noun-turned-verb.


• This was closely followed by an ad for a resort in the Caribbean which features many amenities and wonderful things, including an "exotic offshore island." Those really are the best kind, of course.


• Asian TV ads for English speaking audiences are an endless source of amusement and/or bafflement. The latter reaction accompanied the commercial for Korean Air, which featured a series of images (most of which had nothing to do with air travel) accompanied by various adjectives in text form. You know, adjectives like "graceful," "visionary," "admired," and, um, "pledging."


• Not everything on TV is silly. Car maker Hyundai is running a series of ads with the theme "Think About It." Along with the world's slowest loading website and some excessively preachy messages, it's providing at least one bit of commendable commentary. The ad I just saw spoke of commitment, and how it had become a scarce commodity in today's culture. "Don't like your nose? Get a new one. Don't like your spouse? Get a new one. Whatever happened to commitment, of making a decision and standing by it?" I confess to being puzzled as to how this will help them sell more cars, but it's a refreshing perspective.

Obligatory warning: Paying close attention to what's on television is not recommended. The preceding was done on a closed course by a professional cynic. Do not try this at home.

Media Confluence in Our Backyard

I just caught the premier of what will apparently be an ongoing feature: Jimmy Patterson appearing live via webcam on the local CBS affiliate's early morning news show, pitching features appearing on the newspaper's website and in the current edition of the treeware version.

I confess that I don't get it.

I suppose there's some value as a technology "proof of concept," although if this morning's YouTube quality broadcast is any indication, even the technology isn't quite there, yet. Jimmy and the CBS anchor, Krista Escamilla (who, by the way, continues to be one of the more likable and capable on-camera personalities in this area) stepped on each other's lines or succumbed to long uncomfortable pauses, giving the impression that Jimmy was broadcasting from, say, Baghdad instead of his home.

In any event, it's unclear to me what value this arrangement will bring the average viewer. I also wonder what the TV station and the newspaper hope to gain, and I'm curious about the back story, including who approached whom and what financial or promotional consideration, if any, is being given on both sides.

This sort of collaborative effort is harmless (I think) and could be entertaining, and if entertainment's the end game, then there's no problem. OTOH, I'm completely missing the journalistic value at this point. Perhaps that will clear up (along with the webcast quality) as the concept evolves.

A Brief Note to TV re: Dog Fighting

While I'm appreciative of the spotlight now being focused on the reprehensible practice of dogfighting (I won't dignify it with the term "sport"), thanks to the Michael Vick connection, trust me when I tell you that there's not a single dog lover in the country who wants to see one more second of TV footage of fighting or injured dogs.

Please stop it, now. We don't need to "get the picture"; we've had it all along.

"Making News: Texas Style"

I had heard rumors about a new reality show supposedly filmed at a local TV station, but until I saw this article* in this morning's newspaper, I had no details.

Making News: Texas Style is a behind the scenes look at the new operations at KOSA-TV, the local CBS affiliate broadcasting from – if you can believe it – a shopping mall in nearby Odessa. If it sounds low-rent, don't believe it; KOSA is the hot ticket in local TV nowadays, giving the previous 800-pound gorilla in the market, the NBC affiliate (KWES), a run for its money.

The fun thing about this series is that all the characters are familiar to west Texans. We see most of them every day – not only on TV but all around town – and some of them we've "known" for decades. The exposure of the reasoning and strategy behind some of the recent decisions and personnel moves should be fascinating.

One important detail omitted in the newspaper article is that the TV Guide Network is Channel 76 on Suddenlink's system, and Channel 18 on Grande Communications. (Sidenote: Good luck finding any programming guide on Suddenlink's website; I guess that's proprietary information.)

The first installment ran last Monday, but it's being repeated at 11:0 p.m. this Friday, and again at 11:0 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. this Saturday. New episodes will air at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 18 and June 25.

*I have no idea why the online version of the article is entitled "Star Telegram less than glowing in its review of KOSA/TV Guide reality show," as I found the column to be quite positive on the whole. The headline on the print edition was much less judgmental: "Reality series goes behind scenes at local TV station."

Weather Report: Accurate but Misleading

Midland sees record rainfall for March 11

That's the sub-headline (OK, what's the proper term for that?) in an article in this morning's paper reporting on yesterday's welcome rain. According to the National Weather Service, Midland received more rainfall yesterday than on any other occurrence of March 11 in recorded history. You have to read carefully* to find that that historically significant event totaled just over a quarter inch of rain -- .27" to be exact.

Up next: Red lights stop traffic all over town!

*Giving credit where it's due, the report did refer to the total as "only .27." Any excessive arm-waving is all mine.

It occurs to me -- not for the first time -- that I really should create a category entitled "Weather," thus enabling you to more easily ignore entire blocks of posts, rather than just a post at a time. I'll have my people look into it.

Pioneer Look-Back

It's time once again for an exciting look back at historical Fort Stockton, courtesy of the "Years Ago" column published in the treeware edition of that town's newspaper, The Pioneer. This from 90 Years Ago:

It's an indication of how far we've come from journalists being able to drop references to the Roman god of rain and reliever of droughts, with the full and reasonable expectation of being properly understood by their readers, to the present time where a distinction between "its" and "it's" is apparently a lost and/or irrelevant art.

On the other hand, perhaps the writer of that report was simply showing off some newly acquired knowledge from a serendipitous source. This also is from the 90 Years Ago report:

It appears that disenchantment with Hollywood's offerings is nothing new.

Poll Faulting

Let me get this straight. A mere two months after turning control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats, a significant majority of Americans feel that the country is moving in the wrong direction (according to a recent and widely publicized poll)? Now, I know I'm a political naif, but this seems to be buyer's remorse on a national scale.

Fortunately, we are blessed with the guidance of CNN Headline News, which was careful yesterday to put a photo of President Bush next to this poll question in its recurring reports, so we'd know *wink, wink* who poll respondents had in mind when they voiced their opinion, never mind that his name wasn't mentioned in conjunction with this question.

The lesson to be learned here? Friends don't let friends respond to lame polls (which, really, is a redundancy).

"And so I'm all, like, WHOA...time warp!"

Imagine my surprise to open today's local newspaper and find that we're already in February, based on the date of my last post.

No, you're not ALL supposed to understand this post, but at least ONE of you is.

The Gazette Gets Plugged

I debated whether to post about this or not and decided to do so as an encouragement to the rest of the local blogging community...and to local MSM outlets, as well.

If you happened to catch the beginning of last night's 10:00 news broadcast on KMID-TV, you saw the feature on Jennifer Taylor and her new bereavement photography ministry, I Say My Prayers. I thought it was very well done, and will be an important step in getting out the word to those who might benefit from this service.

You may or may not have noticed what came at the end of that feature -- a plug for the Gazette as the source for the story. In case you missed it...well, it seemed like a great excuse to join YouTube and see what the cool kids are doing:

While it doesn't necessarily compare with the mention that Jessica's Well got on Fox News a couple of years back, it's still an example of how the joint efforts of traditional media and bloggers can work for the benefit of the public at large. This is old hat to Jimmy Patterson at the Midland Reporter-Telegram, and Jeff McDonald has incorporated blogged material in KWES-TV's (NBC) website, but I haven't seen much on-air acknowledgment by any of the local TV stations*. KMID's news director, Mel Hudman, gets the credit for taking this step. It's not a huge thing, but I think it helps the credibility of the Permian Basin blogging community as a whole.

*If this is happening and I'm just missing it, feel free to correct my perception in the comments. That's why they're there. Well, and for you to tell me what an awesome job I'm doing.

Note: We'll have the whole news feature up on isaymyprayers.com a little later, if you missed it. And here it is (beware; it's a 6 meg QuickTime download).

Media Behaving Badly

Last week, I did a mental double-take as I was watching an evening news broadcast on our local CBS affiliate. The story was a live report from the Permian Basin Fair in Odessa, and featured an interview with one of the fair's performers, a woman who had an aerial "daredevil" act.

After a couple of questions about the act and her reaction to the crowds at the fair, the interviewer then asked a rather odd question about her hotel accommodations, prefacing the question with something like "I know you're staying at the MCM Elegante, which is owned by the same company as our television station..." That presumably was the cue to let the audience know that we had now shifted from the news -- however soft it had been -- to a blatant commercial for the hotel, and, specifically, the comfort of its beds. It's impossible to know if the interviewee had been coached, but she immediately launched into a gushing endorsement of the accommodations, stating that her husband's back problems were completely nullified by the hotel's bed, etc.

At the time, I was taken aback, but chalked it up to the heat of the moment, a live interview in a relatively non-newsworthy setting. However, the scene was repeated during last night's 10:00 p.m. news broadcast, as a news report that was ostensibly about the world-famous Albuquerque Balloon Festival turned into another infomercial about the MCM hotel in that city, complete with in-room video tours and interviews with the hotel staff extolling the merits of their employer. The KOSA "reporter," Sam Conn, summed up the story by saying that "if you haven't stayed in the MCM, well, you just haven't stayed in a hotel." (Note to the MCM publicist: If you want to distinguish yourself from, say Hotel 6 or Comfort Inn, try keeping the boxy metal wall-mounted HVAC units in your rooms out of camera view.) After the story, the news anchor again issued a disclosure to the effect that both the MCM hotel and CBS-7 were owned by the same company, ICA Properties.

Now, I have no problem with ICA using its media ownership to tout its other assets. ICA president John Bushman already owns half of Odessa and has done his fair share of developing and enhancing the west Texas economy in ways that benefit many of its residents. The fact that the KOSA studios are housed in the Music City Mall (carrying through with the "MCM" theme) which is also owned by ICA should not imply any impropriety; I assume there's a legitimate arms-length business relationship that's mutually beneficial to both entities. On the other hand, when advertising of ICA businesses is seamlessly inserted into news broadcasts, with or without disclosure statements, a line has been crossed in a way that I find offensive.

In my own admittedly subjective scorekeeping, KOSA now has two strikes in this regard. Despite the fact that it otherwise presents one of the most informative and professional news broadcasts in the area, the third strike of this nature will prompt me to switch my news viewing to another station.

And that's the way it is.

A Photo(shop) is Worth a Thousand Words

Actual unretouched Reuters photo of mutant Israeli
soldier prowling the Lebanese countryside

Reuters new motto: Reshaping reality one pixel at a time.

Technorati tags: Reuters | Photoshopping the News

Why we still need newspapers

This morning's edition of the Midland Reporter-Telegram has a(nother) front page story* about Blogathon (you have heard of Blogathon, right? ;-), and you can read that story online. But in doing so, you'll miss the amusing irony that presented itself to perceptive consumers of the treeware version, which was a photograph adjacent to the Blogathon story describing a scene from something called "the Virtual Dementia Tour."

Besides thinking that would be a great name for a band, I'm hard-pressed to come up with a more apt description than what Jimmy and I are about to embark upon.

*This is also a reminder of the importance of having friends in the MSM, especially if they're also bloggers.

Not-so-subtle Anti-Bush Media Bias

CNN Headline News* is running a report on a poll conducted following last night's presidential speech about immigration reform. The poll showed that a significant majority of people are now favorably impressed with the president's immigration reform proposals, and that the speech effectively and positively changed the perception of many people regarding Bush's approach to the issue.

But what struck me about the report is the apparent unwillingness by CNN to let any positive news about the administration go unchallenged, as the poll's results were presented with this disclaimer (I'm putting this in quotes, although it's being recalled from memory): "These results do not and cannot reflect the opinion of all Americans, as the poll was limited to those who actually watched last night's speech." I can't recall ever hearing a similar disclaimer on other poll results, particularly those which happen to show dissatisfaction with something the administration is doing.

The irony is that the disclaimer actually has the effect of validating the poll, in that they might as well have said, "these results reflect the opinions of the population of Americans who went to the trouble to become informed about the issues addressed by the poll, and thus is more valid than most of our other polls which are conducted at John Kerry's most recent garden party."

*Why do I watch CNNHN? Because Fox can't seem to understand that I'm not interested in 24/7 coverage of the Duke lacrosse rape indictments, or whatever the flashiest crime du jour happens to be.

A Decade with WSJ Online

The Wall Street Journal's subscription website -- the Online Journal -- celebrated its tenth anniversary on April 29. I'm inexplicably proud to say that I was a charter subscriber, and the site remains the only one that I'm willing and happy to pay for.

The site was rolled out as a free demo, and it remained that way until August, 1996, at which time the subscription fees were implemented: $29/year for subscribers to the paper edition and $49/year for non-print-subscribers. I'm not sure how many others joined me in subscribing (at the time, I had a print subscription courtesy of my employer...but I paid for the online version out of my own pocket and did so until we parted ways several years later), but by April, 1997, there were 100,000. That number doubled by December of 1997. The subscriber base reached 700,000 in 2004, surely making the Online Journal one of the most successful publications of its kind. In fact, this Dow Jones press release touts it as "the largest paid subscription news site on the Web" and pegs the fall, 2005 subscriber base at 764,000. (By way of comparison, the paid circulation of the dead tree version is just over 2 million.)

The subscription fee is now $99 per year ($49 for those who are also print subscribers). Interestingly, that $99 is the same price that subscribers pay for the daily print edition.

The WSJ is one mainstream outlet that "gets the web," in my opinion. It continues to tweak its layout, content, and features while still retaining a distinctive and traditional feel, and while resisting any moves to include superfluous eye-candy that slow the site without adding any meaning.

I spend on average less than fifteen minutes a day perusing the Journal's website, but that fifteen minutes generally time better spent than on any other business or news site. The added benefit of an online-only subscription is that I don't have to face a growing pile of partially-read newspapers...and, believe me, those things can stack up in a hurry.

A little MSM fact-checking...

Midland got a mention this morning on Fox & Friends when the hosts discussed this report about an attempted purchase at a local Wal-Mart of a large number of disposable cell phones, and the investigation into possible ties between the would-be buyers and a terrorist cell in "the Metroplex" (which we all recognize as the Dallas-Fort Worth area).

Steve Doocy, one of the hosts, mentioned in passing that Midland/Odessa also "has a Metroplex" [sic], a comment which triggered my OCD and prompted me to fire off an email pointing out that we referred to ourselves as "the Petroplex" in recognition of our status within the oil and gas industry. The text of my short email:

I was, of course, motivated by the selfless desire to have strict accuracy in media reports, although if Fox News wished to display the Gazette's URL and describe it and its proprietor in glowing terms of adulation, well, that would be cool, too.

While the latter didn't happen (as far as I know; I had to run Abbye to the vet's office for a blood test), I did receive the following reply to my email within eight minutes after sending mine:

I can't decide whether Doocy needs additional correction or if he used that spelling intentionally so that I'd know that he knew the root reference of the term "Petroplex." What the heck; it's Friday...I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

But we're watching, boy-o...the bloggers are watching, and no detail is too arcane or insignificant to escape our eagle eyes.

Update: My wife just informed me that Fox did indeed correct its usage of "Metroplex" in relation to Midland/Odessa. Unfortunately, they corrected it to "Petrolplex" (as in Doocy's email) instead of "Petroplex." Given everything else going on in the world, that's close enough. I did what I could.

KMID-TV Kisses Off Grande?

Update (11/18/05): According to this article in today's Midland Reporter-Telegram, the KMID and Grande have "reached an agreement" and ABC's local programming will not be pulled from the cable's lineup. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed.

Does anyone really believe that the local ABC affiliate, KMID-TV, is going to withdraw its programming from the Grande Communications cable network in west Texas on December 31? I know; they say they're going to do it, calling it Grande's decision in electing not to pay the station 30¢ per subscriber. Of course, Grande provides a different perspective on the dustup (link is to a PDF document), including the following:

Gee, doesn't this sound familiar? Oh, now I remember. It was three years ago that KMID threatened to pull its programming from the other cable provider in the area, Cox Communications. Guess what? There was never any disruption of service.

All the same arguments I put forth back then still seem to apply. Of course, Grande's subscriber base is smaller than Cox's (I couldn't find any actual numbers to quantify the difference) but the real winners if this parting actually occurs will be the other three local stations, and, possibly, Cox itself. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that some people would rather switch cable companies than lose access to ABC programming; the network had four of the top ten shows (and three of the top five) in the last Nielsen survey.

Of course, the losers are the same schmoes that take it on the chin every time: the customers...you and me. Although, now that I think about it, removing easy access to "Desperate Housewives" from a few thousand homes each week might not be such a bad thing after all.

I predict this will get settled before December 31. If not, look for violence to potentially take place on January 4, 2006.

Technorati tags: Grande Communications | KMID-TV

OSM Debuts *yawn*

The much-hyped Pajamas Media portal, Open Source Media (OSM), debuted a couple of days ago, and I'm still trying to figure out why it's a big deal. OSM is intended to be a "portal to the blogosphere," somehow bringing us the best and brightest, the most up-to-date and relevant, the sharpest of the cutting-edge -- so as to save us the trouble of finding it on our own. Or, possibly, having to rely on the MSM to get our content.

The only part of the concept I really grasp is that the founders hope to make some money from the site by selling advertising. Otherwise, I haven't seen any content compelling enough to make me want to return on a frequent basis. I've got a newsreader, and I know how to use it. I don't need a "portal" where someone who isn't me tries to decide what I'm interested in...even if those "someones" are all A-listers in the blogosphere. Plus, their aggregations are just weird.

For example, under "USA News," today's top two headlines are "Gibbs' return showing capital gains for Redskins" and "Michigan State has been a danger zone for Top 10 teams." These are both sports stories...but the page on which they appear bill thems and the others as "Top 5 Recent Headlines in the US," (along with "Caring for your trees will sprout rewards for you," which is either a horticulture article or a fortune cookie reading).

Then there's the "bloggers' debate" appearing on the home page, which purports to be an enlightening discussion among four big-name bloggers (Austin Bay, Brad Friedman, Max Sawicky, "Sgt. Mom") about "Why We Fight." After the first few entries, I quit reading as it reminded me of a junior high chatroom, albeit with slightly more multi-syllable words while lacking the energy.

It's probably just me, but there are some things I'd rather do for myself. For now, almost everything OSM is trying to do falls into that category.

Technorati tag: Open Source Media

Big Groups of Stupid People

Jim over at Serotoninrain links to an article in Forbes entitled "Attack of the Blogs" [free registration required] in which is described a few instances where groups of bloggers joined forces to harass people with whom they didn't agree. The author extrapolates from those examples that bloggers comprise a formidable lynch mob. Here's the overblown intro:

Jim takes significant umbrage at the charges leveled in the article, and points out that he's not the only one. It will be interesting to follow this in the blogosphere to see if the article was actually designed to elicit the kind of reaction it describes. It's certainly starting out that way.

Forbes does seem to be making the same mistake that the anti-gun lobby insists on repeating, and that's to blame an object for its misuse. Forbes even goes so far as to blame the "manufacturers" (blog-enablers like Google and Yahoo, in this case), much as anti-gun forces target Colt, Smith & Wesson, et al.

The article reminds me a bit of C.S. Lewis' quote about the devil: be careful not to attribute to him too little power...or too much.

But before the blogosphere goes all medieval on Forbes self-exposed backside, it might be helpful to do some self-examination to see if it's as squeaky clean as it will no doubt claim that it is.

There's a popular bumper sticker that reads "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." The blogosphere is a growing microcosm of society; society as a whole contains a fair number of people who do stupid, illegal, immoral and detestable things. Why do we think the blogging population won't sometimes exhibit those same behaviors? Does the ability to type somehow confer a superior set of ethics and wisdom? (See also Shakespeare, Monkeys and.)

If there's one thing in the article that I agree with, it's that the ability to be anonymous will be abused by bloggers. Not could be; not potentially...it's a fact that has been demonstrated in the past and will continue to be the Achille's Heel of this medium. The very thing that liberates also drags it down. Until people are willing to step up and be personally accountable for what they write about other people, we'll continue to see abuse and allegations of abuse in this regard.

And spare me the lectures about how anonymity is essential for true freedom of speech in cases of corporate whistleblowing or dictatorships. Using those legitimate examples to argue that hidden identities must be protected for all use simply demeans those who really need it...and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who falls into which category.

There'll be plenty of others who do an excellent line-by-line fisking of the Forbes article (and there are several outrageous claims to be debunked), and the blogosphere as a whole will walk away both unscathed and proud of how it defended itself. It's too bad that a poorly researched and written article provides an excuse for ignoring the kernel of truth that's hidden inside.

Fortunately, the bloggers whose work I regularly read and respect will be unsullied by both the article's claims and the truth behind some of them, and I salute them for that.

Technorati tags: Forbes | "Attack of the Blogs"

"Web Blogs" - The new "Letters to the Editor"?

The following ad is running in our local newspaper to remind us that October 2-8 is National Newspaper Week.

When I first started blogging, I'll admit that I devoted a fair number of posts to picking at newspaper articles, headlines and other content. I don't do that so much anymore. For one thing, others are much better at it than me. And I've also come to realize that 99% of the blogosphere -- including the Gazette -- doesn't inhabit the same ecosystem as newspapers, nor does it compete for resources, nor does it have a monopoly on truth or accuracy.

But I think this ad is wrong in a couple of ways and I can't let it pass without comment; it seems to underscore how the MSM is still trying to get a clue about blogs.

First, I don't know what a "Web Blog" is. Perhaps that's a trivial technicality... but you don't find bloggers referring to "new papers" unless they're posting something about relining their birdcages.

Second, the idea that printed letters to the editor "provide an ideal forum for citizens to exchange ideas and opinions" is laughable, especially in comparison to comments-enabled blogs. The editorial control over those printed letters and the absence of real-time dialog makes them far from ideal. [Granted, the same kind of editorial control is theoretically possible in blogs, but the blogospheric feedback mechanism is swift and without pity. Blogs that engage in significant editing of comments will likely find themselves without commenters or readers.]

I'm not suggesting that letters to the editor are worthless, nor am I trying to stoke an adversarial relationship with local MSM. But my advice to my friends in the MSM is simple: if you're going to insist on comparing your gig to blogs, try to find some meaningful basis for comparison instead of letting the hyperbole of ad copy distort the message. We'll all be better off for the effort.

Brother Ben's Traveling Salvation Show

Because of the veritable groundswell of demand (OK...two people, but that's a significant percentage of my regular readership), I'm going to complete the post that I began yesterday morning. It's better that I took a little time to think about it anyway. I've got a different perspective now than I did right after the event.

We attended Ben Stein's lecture Thursday night at Midland College, courtesy of the Davidson Distinguished Lecture Series. For those readers not in Midland, this program invites generally well-known speakers and provides free admission to the public.

You can read Stein's creds on his website if you're not already familiar with him. Given his success in a wide range of endeavors, labeling him a "Renaissance Man" is probably not hyperbole, at least with respect to the breadth of his intellectual achievements. But whatever it was that Ben once staked his claim to fame on, he's nowadays first and foremost an entertainer. Sure, he's got a background in law and economics and was a presidential speech-writer and was active in the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s, and his conservative take on most* things political and economic give him a broad and enthusiastic base of support from those on the right of center...like, say, the typical audience in Midland, Texas.

What he provides is an entertaining and often humorous monologue, filled with easily digested sound bites and a lot of "motherhood and apple pie" homilies that we've heard many times before. I suppose that it's encouraging to hear such things from someone who rubs shoulders with the "elite" in Hollywood and Malibu (he and Babs apparently do their grocery shopping in the same store), but I can't help wondering if and why those things have any more relevance when coming from his lips than from the pulpits and coffee shops and cafés and living rooms all around our city and our part of the country. Really, the adage about preaching to the saved was never more appropriate than Thursday night.

Stein does know how to hook an audience. In our case, he began by referring to Midland as "the last refuge of the sane American" and the place "where I'm moving when I retire." Responding to the warnings he was given about Midland being a treeless landscape, he said "people are the trees; they give you shade and shelter."

I'm sure he was suitably impressed by the pre-lecture reception in his honor at The Racquet Club, a lovely venue that I suspect 90% of Midlanders have never set foot inside. And I'm sure he was gratified by the applause that frequently interrupted his talk, in response to comments like...

• Poverty does not yield to paternalism; it yields to free market capitalism and democracy.
• If the people who run the New York Times could see the peace of mind on your faces, it would drive them insane.
• Major media and Hollywood are having a negative effect on our determination to defeat the enemy that wants to destroy America.
• The US military can't save America by itself. Someone more than likely died for us today in Iraq or Afghanistan. What did we do today to deserve that honor?
• Tony Blair says that the simple measure of a country is by counting how many people want in, and how many want out. As far as I can tell, the only people who want out of America are Barbra Streisand and Alec Baldwin. I've offered to help Barbra move, but so far, she's ignored me.
• After Katrina, the media rioted...in it's hatred for Bush.

He paid a well-deserved tribute to those serving in America's military, to the "first responders," to school teachers, to Laura Bush and to her mom (who was in the audience). He contrasted the heroism of various well-known actors in WWII to the noticeable absence of similar stories today.

He devoted a few minutes to describing the dangers and life-threatening situations faced by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. His remarks were made uncomfortable by the fact that we were sitting next to a friend whose son was shipping out to Iraq -- and, specifically, to Baghdad -- as a combat soldier the very next morning.

Stein left us with the simple admonition that we should and could find meaning in life by doing things for other people. At the end, he got a standing ovation.

But, a couple of days after the event, I can't help wondering...what did we learn? What was accomplished? I guess I was hoping for more...more facts, more analogies, more historical perspective...to help us create a better and more satisfying context within which to view current events and economic trends. Perhaps he feels the need to "dumb down" his remarks for general audiences such as this. Or, perhaps, Ben Stein is just another actor -- albeit much better educated and informed than 99% of his fellows -- who happens to have a worldview and values that closely parallel those of the audiences in his chosen venues.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticizing Ben Stein for getting large sums of money to say things that his audience wants to hear. It's a basic matter of supply and demand, and as an economist he understands that as well as anyone on the planet. I simply want to make sure to remind myself that letting someone else do our thinking for us is a dangerous strategy, and while we need cheerleaders, the real action is on the playing field. Thursday night's pep talk was entertaining but I didn't leave better prepared for the game.

For additional, and differing, perspectives on his lecture, be sure to visit Wallace's post at Streams (if the permalink doesn't work, look for the 9/23/05 post), and the article in the Midland Reporter-Telegram. The one quibble I have with the latter article is in the use of "hundreds" to describe the number of people in attendance. That's technically correct, but conveys a different impression than if the more accurate "thousands" had been used.

*Perhaps the most interesting thing he revealed was during the Q&A that followed his prepared remarks, where he was asked about alternatives to the current income tax system. He espouses something like a VAT, but also specifically calls for the continuation of a progressive form of whatever tax system is used. In other words, he believes that the "rich" should pay proportionately more in taxes than the "poor." Given that many economists who hold political views similar to Stein's seem to agree that it's the wealthy who create the jobs and power the economic engine, I was somewhat surprised by his statement.

Technorati tag: Ben Stein

Could your timing be any worse?

I'm sure that the food section of the newspaper is the last place one might think would need some editorial discretion, and yet that seems to be precisely what is lacking in this morning's edition of the MRT

The five-column main story in our local newspaper is an AP story headlined "Diners line up to get into 100-year-old New Orleans bistro." It goes into great detail about Galatoire's restaurant, a Bourbon Street culinary landmark. I looked for context that would somehow make this story appropriate in light of Katrina's devastation of New Orleans, but found none. This was a simple case of poor timing.

In fact, I hope that the story was simply overlooked in the press of other things. I hope no one looked at it and made a conscious decision that, well, "New Orleans is in the news everywhere else, so this is a logical tie-in."

And, of course, I hope that Galatoire's will once again -- and soon -- be the legitimate subject of a story praising its cuisine and spotlighting the crowds that line up to partake of it.

Annoying Informalities

I was going to write about yesterday's rejection by Dutch voters of the EU Constitution*, but I think we're all in agreement as to the implications regarding member nation sovereignty and cultural assimilation. Instead, I'd like to turn my attention to a far more pressing issue, and that is the ever increasing annoyance of certain local TV newscasters to use the word "busted" in place of far more elegant alternatives.

You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a reporter telling us that "the windows were busted out," or "the water main busted around midnight," or "the vandals busted up furniture and computer equipment." This engenders in me the same reaction as fingernails across a blackboard (you do remember blackboards, don't you?) or seeing Rosie O'Donnell on a made-for-TV movie.

I perceive this to be a generational phenomenon, by the way. The practice seems to be more prevalent on one local station (no names, of course, but the network rhymes with "In Bee See") where some of the newscasters are younger than most of my socks. My advice to them is to grab a thesaurus, wherein they'll find all sorts of wonderful alternatives, thereby freeing me up to write about my first love: those zany European political antics.

*It's obvious that the EU is trying to emulate the Texas Constitution. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting yet another amendment to the Texas Constitution. In fact, I'm pretty sure that dead cat swinging is specifically addressed an amendment therein. Still, at just under 100,000 words (but growing), Texas falls short of the EU's efforts by 75%. I guess that not everything is bigger in Texas, after all.

Blogging's Next Big Thing

The introduction of Pajamas Media by A-lister Roger L. Simon has many bloggers scrambling to get in on The Next Big Thing. In this case, it's a vision to rival anything Tolkien ever dreamt up: one Blog to rule them all.

OK, perhaps that's a bit dramatic. The concept behind Pajamas Media is relatively simple, and yet almost breath-taking in scope. The plan is to recruit bloggers around the world to provide local news to an aggregator, along the lines of the Associated Press. The aggregation of this input will ostensibly provide one-stop shopping for those who want to get their "realtime" news via bloggers. In return for providing the product, the participating bloggers will get a wider audience than they probably attract on their own, and they stand to gain financially via shared ad revenue.

As of a couple of days ago, PM had signed up 170 bloggers and, presumably, that number will continue to grow rapidly as word gets out. That group may include one of our own, Wallace over at Streams, who is enamored with the idea and has spoken directly with Simon about it.

It's also brought to light at least one almost identical proposal which, had the funding been available, might have cut the legs out from under PM's plans. If nothing else, the fact that two groups of savvy folks came up with the same idea almost simultaneously would seem to give it some legitimacy.

I have mixed feelings about the concept. As I wrote my pal Bryan over at Arguing with Signposts, the co-conspirator of the competing idea linked above, I'm torn between the allure of wanting to be a part of The Next Big Thing and the desire to remain untainted by any hint of external influence. If I'm going to have my blogging influenced, I want it to be solely by my own irrational and chimeric biases and motivations and poorly understood neuroses.

I suspect that the vast majority of bloggers don't want to be journalists (in the conventional media sense of the term). And, believe it or not, some of us aren't even interested in making money out of blogging. But for those who have the talent, training and desire to report and analyze newsworthy events on their blogs, this aggregation idea seems to be a dream come true, and I wish them the best of luck.

For the rest of us, however, this might be a good time to reacquaint ourselves with the concept behind the Coalition of Unpaid Bloggers. That way, in five years when we find that we have, indeed, missed out on fame and fortune because we refused to join The Next Big Thing, we can say that we meant to do that.

Technorati tags: Coalition of Unpaid Bloggers | Pajamas Media | News Aggregation

Pulitzer Prizes Announced

Update: Joel Achenbach works with a bunch of Pulitzer Prize winners, and he shares his thoughts about writers in general and Steve Coll, this year's winner of the award for general non-fiction, in particular.

The 2005 Pulitzer Prizes were announced yesterday, ensuring that a score of individuals and newspapers will forevermore be referred to as "Pulitzer-prize winning" [fill in the blank...author, poet, journalist, newspaper, cartoonist, etc.]. It's better than a knighthood, really, if for no other reason than women can receive the adjectival honor, as well as groups of people (newspaper staffs, for example). And it pretty much ensures that your résumé will write itself in the future.

I was somewhat surprised to see that the Wall Street Journal's Joe Morgenstern received the award for Criticism (which, given the flavor of our society, is surely the most competitive of all the competitions!). Joe is the movie critic for the Journal, and while I've faithfully read his reviews for years, I find that I have rarely agreed with his take. In fact, it's a standing joke around our house that we'll bump up a movie to "must see" status if Joe has written a particularly scathing review of it. But, that's the hallmark of a successful professional critic: ensuring that people continue to read your columns even if they rarely agree with them. Mr. Morgenstern wins a tidy $10K to go along with the eternal title.

The other winner of note is Nick Anderson, for Editorial Cartooning, thankfully sparing us of the humiliation of having to see Gary Trudeau's name in lights again. Nick is affiliated with the Louisville, KY Courier-Journal newspaper, and he also wins $10,000. Even if you can't place his name, you'll be familiar with his style. He's received numerous professional awards for his cartoons, which tend to avoid the petty nastiness we see in the work of too many of his colleagues. I was interested to note that the names of his two sons, Travis and Colton, are hidden in each of his cartoons. If you go to the previously linked site, you can review a few of his recent 'toons and spend some quality time looking for those names...which isn't an easy task given the low resolution of the images. Mr. Anderson is also a bicyclist, so he's got that going for him.

Question of the day: Will there eventually be a Pulitzer Prize for blogging?

Technorati tags: Pulitzer Prize | Joe Morgenstern | Nick Anderson

"Convergence in 3...2...1..."

For the second time in ten days, I've been contacted by members of the local MSM in regard to posts on the Gazette. They've each wanted my permission to contact the subjects of those posts for the purpose of doing their own stories. In each case, I'll admit that my immediate reaction was along the lines of "Yeah, right...go get your own stuff!" Fortunately, I realized the immaturity of this reaction and set the wheels in motion for both requests to be fulfilled. After all, I've frequently used material from both outlets as the basis for content for Gazette posts; as they say, turnabout is fair play. (Let me add that the requests have come from the two outlets which can arguably be viewed as the Big Dogs in this area in terms of broadcast and print media.)

In fact, I'm greatly heartened by this turn of events. I don't want to read too much into it, but here are some implications that occur to me:

• In both cases, the requests were accompanied by offers of attribution to the Gazette as the source. This is standard operating procedure in the blogosphere (people who "borrow" content without linking are subject to harsh reaction by their fellow bloggers), but I haven't been seen evidence of a similar policy on the MSM side. It appears that for some MSMers, at least, their sensitivity to the importance of blog attribution has been raised.


• I can't help but be impressed that the MSM is recognizing that blogs can be a legitimate source of content. In my case, I didn't do anything special to uncover or create the content, but I was available and accessible, and able to take advantage of a certain sphere of influence, however miniscule. This reporting of "niche news" arising from individual relationships is something that the MSM really can't consistently achieve on its own.


• The very fact that they asked to begin with may be an indication that it is possible for a blog/MSM collaboration to be constructed that works in both directions. It may be an uneasy dance, with neither partner willing to completely accede the leading role to the other, but this should change as we do more of this and begin to trust each other. (Of course, this is much less complicated in my situation where I'm blogging in a non-professional role. However, I'm not aware of anyone in our area who's even attempting to make a living by blogging, so maybe that's not important after all.)

I'd welcome any comments and insights from readers -- particularly from those in the journalism business -- about whether I'm being overly pollyanna-ish in my perception of these issues. I'd also like to hear your opinions about the extent to which blog/MSM collaborations should or can be cultivated in order to proactively generate content that appeals to consumers of both media. That, I suppose, is the real measure of whether convergence has occurred.

Technorati tag: MSM

Musing about The Long Tail

The more I think about Dave Sifry's post regarding the distribution and diversity of blogs and implications for Main Stream Media, the less compelling I find the arguments. The data is too incomplete or tainted to support any serious conclusions on way or the other.

OK, so it's the best we have. That's not an excuse for using it as a foundation for a world view. I'm not even sure that it's useful for highlighting trends. And I see absolutely nothing in the data that supports statements like this: "In fact, even though the amount of influence that a single blog may have is less than that of a single blog on the A-list, the aggregate influence of all of the long tail far outstrips even the mainstream media."

What about the "long tail" of the mainstream media? It's there, you know, in the form of thousands of small local or regional dailies or weeklies. It's there in the form of hundreds -- if not thousands -- of niche magazines and journals, some of which are online, many of which aren't. How does one measure the collective impact...the aggregate influence...of those media outlets on the public at-large?

Then there's the problem of properly categorizing the blogs that make up both the A-list and the long tail. As some commenters on Mr. Sifrey's post have observed, some of those blogs really aren't. They're spam and/or porn, or they don't really fit a classification that can be validly compared to an MSM outlet. And according to Michelle Malkin, Mr. Sifrey himself acknowledges that 45% of the 7 million blogs in Technorati's index haven't been updated in six months. Gee, that would seem to be a real damper on the influence of those 3.15 million blogs, wouldn't you think?

And, finally, there's the nagging problem of using links to measure impact, instead of actual readership. I link to scores of blogs which I rarely if ever read. I read many more to which I have no links (Lileks is a good example and I have a hundred others on RSS feed). If you have a blog, I'm sure you do the same thing. How does this factor into the big picture? Beats me, and I suspect no one else knows, either.

The bottom line is that the only thing this Technorati-derived data does is highlight the immense diversity of information sources now available to us. Any other conclusions are a stretch.

"A-List" Bloggers Market Share

Barring a discovery of another Paris Hilton video, this will be the most linked article in the blogosphere today.

It's another article by Technorati's Dave Sifry, this time dealing with the misperception that a few heavy hitting bloggers are somehow drowning out the rest of the blogosphere. It also debunks the theory that blogpower is more "concentrated" (whatever that means) than the MSM. Complete with Flash-based graphs! Read the whole thing.

As a card-carrying member of the Long Tail, this heartens me greatly. Although I'm not sure I completely agree with the use of linking as a proxy for readership. As Scott Chaffin puts it, nobody clicks anymore.

Does it seem crowded in here?

Have you seen this?

*This number is corrected in a later post; it should be "9 months." But the point is still impressive.

That's from Sifry's Alerts, the blog by Dave Sifrey, the CEO and founder of Technorati. He goes on to write...

Regarding posting volume, Technorati yields this...

If you're feeling overwhelmed by the sheer number and diversity of blogs, and if you're getting a little oversaturated by media attention focused on the phenomenon, these numbers will help you understand why, even if they won't necessarily make you feel better about it.

At some point, people without blogs will be regarded in a similar light as folks who don't have televisions. They're probably harmless, but, really, how would you have a conversation with them?

Or...the sheer impossibility of being heard amongst a billion other bloggers will cause a backlash that will result in the simultaneous bankruptcy of Movable Type, WordPress, GoogleBlogger and...yes...Technorati, and the former A-List bloggers will be regarded in a similar light as the 17th century Dutch tulip speculators.

Sunshine Week

"Sunshine Week" starts tomorrow. Never heard of it? Neither had I, until I saw the logo on ArchaeoTexture. Here's the scoop from Sunshine Week's website:

There's more; read the whole thing.

If there's anything that bloggers, MSMers and the general public ought to be able to agree on, it's that government -- at all levels -- should be open and transparent. Whether something like Sunshine Week will be effective in making this happen remains to be seen...but it's a start.

Technorati tags: Freedom of Information | Sunshine Week

BatesLine Strikes Back

I think this is self-explanatory.

Memo to the Tulsa Whirled: Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. You guys in Oklahoma know about whirlwinds, don't you?

Peggy Noonan on Blogging

Peggy Noonan's essay about blogging in the OpinionJournal is undoubtedly the most linked-to article in the blogosphere today.

There's a good reason for that. Read it and find out.

Hat tips to, among many, local guys Stark Trek and Jessica's Well.

Tulsa World and tortious interference

Phelps may not be a lawyer, but he sure can write like one. And he puts forth a pretty good argument as to why The Tulsa World may be guilty of tortious interference, to go along with its general alienation of the entire blogosphere.

As written about here and on scores of other blogs, the World (aka "the Whirled") started down this self-destructive path when it decided to harass the Tulsa-based blog BatesLine over what the newspaper alleged was infringement of copyright and improper linking (whatever that means). The Whirled's net was cast wide enough to include another organization, unrelated to BatesLine, called "Tulsans for Election Integrity," which opposes the Whirled-supported recall of two city councilmen. The Whirled leveled some threats that apparently succeeded in causing TFEI's internet service provider to break its contract with the group to avoid being caught up in the controversy.

Having some firsthand knowledge of tortious interference claims (via my oil bidness experience), the Whirled's actions appear egregious enough to warrant a closer look by TFEI's legal counsel. Blogger outrage over some patently ridiculous accusations may not get the Whirled's proper attention, but a court appearance as a defendant might.

Tulsa newspaper fails to count bullets before aiming at local blogger

I've always had a certain fondness for the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma. It has a history tied to the oil and gas industry, like Midland. Its downtown redevelopment success could serve as a model for any community, and it seems smaller than its population of almost 400,000 might suggest. Tulsa citizens seem for the most part to be friendly, competent and easy-going. Which makes me wonder why they deserve a daily newspaper as petty and belligerent as the Tulsa World.

This newspaper has apparently suffered mightily at the hands of a local blogger named Michael Bates, whose blog, BatesLine, frequently writes about the paper's perceived lack of objectivity and other shortcomings. The World (ironic title, isn't it?) has decided to retaliate by siccing its lawyer one of its executives on BatesLine, writing a "cease and desist" letter accusing Bates of violating its copyright by quoting articles from the paper, and of improper linking to its content. The paper threatens Bates with a lawsuit if he doesn't remove all quotes of its material, and all links to its website.

Perhaps the Tulsa World subscribes to the theory that any publicity is good publicity, in which case its ploy is succeeding, perhaps even beyond its wildest dreams. As Bates writes this morning, he's receiving a veritable flood of support from not only the blogosphere but also some traditional media; look for this to continue and expand as word gets out.

This little imbroglio has some rather significant implications for the relationship between old and new media. The World (or "The Whirled," as Bates likes to refer to it) seems to want to extend its copyright well beyond the traditional limits of the fair use doctrine. It also wants to control linkage on the web. Bates, on the other hand, wants the freedom to express his opinions regarding the factual accuracy of what he reads in the paper, as well as his perceptions of some apparent conflicts of interest that affect the paper's coverage of and positions toward certain local issues.

The newspaper may very well be able to build a legal case in support of some of its accusations, although I doubt it. But in doing so, it may also find its credibility damaged beyond repair. It's already become something of a laughingstock in online circles, and I wouldn't be surprised if sometime in the future the foolish and shortsighted leveling of trumped-up accusations against a blogger will be referred to as "being whirled."

Technorati tags: Freedome of Speech | Mainstream Media

Women's Wear Doofus

Update (2/11/05): Women's Wear Daily has retracted -- or at least corrected -- the misleading story described below.

I had a hard time deciding in which category this post belongs. On the surface, the lunatic ravings of Women's Wear Daily's Sara James about blog pal Dawn Eden seems to belong in the "Just Plain Silly" grouping, but only because it's one of those "you have to laugh to keep from crying" stories.

After reading Dawn's refutations (here and here), it seems to be yet another case where a "journalist" refused to let the facts get in the way of a juicy story, resulting in the apparent libeling of an innocent. Knowing Dawn as I think I do, WWD is in for a very rough ride unless it issues a speedy and complete retraction.

And, despite Gawker's well-intentioned support, Dawn might remember that the only admonition in the Bible about not taking an offender to court is when all parties involved are believers.

Gazette = MSM?

What's up with this?

I guess I'd better hire someone to throw laptops into front yards each morning.

Down with Journalists

Bryan over at Arguing With Signposts makes a strong argument that the term "journalist" no longer works and should be discarded in favor of some specific alternatives.

Works for me, although I doubt I'll lose much sleep over it one way or another.

Declining Newspaper Readership: It's not just us

Following closely on the heels of the preceding post, I ran across this report at North Sea Diaries (a blog covering European politics and media) which includes some statistics that show that the decine in newspaper readership is not an exclusively American phenomenon. The report quotes an article from Le Monde Diplomatique:

Gee, where have we heard that before?

Decline in Readership Challenges Newspapers

I somehow missed this when Bryan first posted it over at Arguing with Signposts a couple of days ago, but I'm glad I went back and stumbled across it. It's an essay by Evan Cornog in the Columbia Journalism Review entitled Let’s Blame the Readers: Is it possible to do great journalism if the public does not care?, and it's an insightful review of the issues facing today's newspapers. How do you get people to read your product, when they don't seem to be interested in reading to begin with?

Bryan's post singles out a disconnect between what journalists think people want to see in the newspaper and what readers actually want to see. It begs the question that even if they understand what readers want, should they give it to them? Here's Cornog's take:

It seems to me that there's a shared responsibility among reporters, publishers and readers for being properly engaged in educating and being educated about current events and how they impact society and our lives. This is a wobbly three-legged stool, and the failure of any one group to do their "job" makes the whole thing unusable. Unfortunately, there's little agreement nowadays on what those "jobs" entail.

Bloggers as Journalists: Be careful what you wish for

Deb over at Write Lightning raises an interesting question: if bloggers are considered journalists, what sorts of legal obligations might arise (or be foisted upon them) as a result of that status?

It would be a pretty desperate prosecutor who'd come after me to reveal the sources of any of the information in my posts...and a pretty disappointed one after finding out that I have no sources. But I can see where this will become an increasingly likely issue for those bloggers who aspire to legitimacy as journalists. If they are or were journalists in their pre-blogging lives, they'll know how to deal with it, but for the others, it could be an eye-opening experience.