Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Ombudsman?

In my other duties as executive director of the Organization of News Ombudsmen, I continue to pound the bully pulpit for media accountability and transparency.

The message continues to be heard outside of North America, where self-regulatory journalism and ombudsmanship are valued. It's a harder sell in the US and Canada where the news business has looked for places to cut costs and ombudsmen seem to be prime candidates.

My recent article about why ombudsmen are more essential than ever, has been posted on on J-Source, and seems to have found a sympathetic hearing from a number of other news organizations.

The Knight Foundation will be releasing a report on "Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age." The report will also mention the need for accountability especially in the blogosphere.

A sign of better days to come? One can only hope.

Why Local TV News is NOT a "Social Lubricant"

An interesting discussion last night at Ryerson University. Entitled "Local TV News Under Siege," it was cosponsored by RTNDA and the School of Journalism. It was to be a panel of news executives on the troubles and travails of local television journalism.

Three of the panelists were from commercial tv stations in and around Toronto, plus the head of local tv news from the CBC. They were there ostensibly to address the plight of local tv news in Canada which is in freefall as ratings decline and advertisers look for other media to place their wares.

But it was a depressing evening. All four panelists were well meaning, I'm sure. All avoided addressing the issue of "whither (sic) local tv news." Instead, to a person, they all denied there is a problem and happily engaged in a round of shameless self-promotion for their stations. Only one panelist, Adrian Bateman from the CTV station in Windsor, Ontario did acknowledge that his station is committed to serving the viewers with high quality, ethical and contextual journalism.

Members of the audience trying to get them to address their collective failure, to little effect. All claimed that the ratings are up. The CBC spokesperson was in extreme denial, in my opinion, when she was asked about why there is no role of social media and citizen journalism. Her answer was that social media is irrelevant: "We haven't talked about that in two years!"

Instead it was the usual recitation of how viewers only want local information especially if it's about crime, traffic or weather.

I suggested that a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism says the exact opposite, but that was met with blank stares. In fact, I didn't hear one new idea from any of the panelists.

As I gloomily wended my way home I happened to hear an amazing BBC World Service report on satellite radio that shifted my mood:

It was by reporter Peter Day and was an interview with - of all people - the CEO of the company that makes the lubricant WD-40! Garry Ridge is an Australian who now heads the WD-40 empire, based in San Diego, California. Ridge is something a management guru on this. But his approach is one that media organizations, especially in these hard economic times, might heed.

Ridge spoke about when a company values its own employees in a serious and substantial way (decent pay, a commitment to training, etc.) that translates into valuing the customer. He also said that when management actually listens to employees, you hear the customers!

What a radical idea for media organizations who don't listen to their employees and don't hear their readers, listeners or viewers! This is particularly applicable to the CBC which appears to be going through yet another program and staff re-organization - despite its diminishing number of employees and its declining audience.

Maybe we should be in the business of selling lubricants...which come to think of it, is precisely what journalism should be doing.

A Newsroom Goes To War

Michael Getler is the former ombudsman at the Washington Post who now does the same for PBS.

As a long time Post journalist, Getler has been a foreign correspondent and has worked the foreign desk. His thoughts on how the Post handled the post-9/11, pre-Iraq War coverage have recently been published in Democracy magazine. Pointedly, his article is entitled "Dereliction of Duty." It's essential reading on how the Post and by implication, other media, mishandled the story.

As I read it, I was stuck by some disturbing similarities with my former news organization. As NPR's ombudsman during this same time period, it occurred to me that in many ways, NPR's coverage mirrored the Post's. Some of this may be due to the fact that both news organizations are in the same city and under the same sorts of influences - even "group think." Political reporters for both the Post and NPR tend to mingle and compare notes. They assume similar audiences and similar approaches and attitudes about the news.

One aspect that deserves a closer examination is the unstated, pro-"big story" atmosphere in the NPR newsroom. It wasn't that senior editorial staff were openly pro-war. But there was a growing sense of being on the verge of the biggest story in years. And the opportunity to cover a war was an unstated and unseemly "vibe" I encountered in talking with reporters, editors and managers. Some quietly expressed reservations about NPR's coverage, but these usually came from more junior journalists and were quickly dismissed and overridden in the morning editorial meetings.

It was that attitude combined with an unhealthy deference to the Bush White house in that strange post-9/11 atmosphere that tended to downplay or ignore anti-war sentiment in the country.

News managers were also able to obtain extra funding for war coverage. Once that budget line was created, it was almost impossible to roll back the sense of excitement and eager anticipation that NPR was about to go cover a real live war.

Journalistic Ethics and Their Consequences

Back in 2007, I taught a course in journalism and ethics at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. The class was made up mostly of older students. Many of them were working journalists, looking to get a Masters degree.

One of the students was a man in his 40s who came to the US from Iraq, named Adil Awadh. Over the months, as we spoke in class about the conflicts and dilemmas of daily journalism, Adil and I would talk at length after class. Most of what concerned him was the question of institutional integrity and how can one deal with moral corruption in a news organization whose goal should be to tell the truth? It was clear there was a story here...

We spent quite a bit of time talking about that issue, and over the weeks, Adil's story emerged.

Adil told me that he had been a doctor in Iraq, drafted into Saddam's army. At some point he decided to desert and flee with his wife and children. The moment of crisis came when as an army doctor, he was ordered to cut off the ears of Iraqi soldiers who had tried to desert and who had been foiled in their attempts to escape. Adil refused, and fled to London where he made contact with anti-Saddam resistance organizations.

But the London groups were unwilling to help him, or even to publish his story. In 2002 Brian Whitaker, in The Guardian wrote a story about Adil's allegations, insinuating that he was an "agent provocateur," possibly a Saddam plant or even an Israeli agent.*

Adil left England and came to America where he was hired by Radio Sawa, a Congressionally funded, pro-US radio service, broadcasting into Iraq from studios in Virginia.

It was while he was an employee at Radio Sawa, that Adil enrolled at Georgetown, taking a night class in journalism and ethics.

According to Adil, Radio Sawa and its parent organization, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN) was rife with incompetence and corruption all the way to the top of the organization (MBN also is in charge of another US government broadcaster - Al Hurra, which has also come under criticism for waste and mismanagement).

Adil complaints to the Office of the Inspector General at the State Department, finally resulted in an investigation. CBS' "60 Minutes" and ProPublica did their own exploration in which they concluded that a lack of managerial oversight and undue political interference from the Bush Administration had made Radio Sawa into a disfunctional operation.

So far, Radio Sawa continues to operate and broadcast to an audience in Iraq that is, according to CBS, almost unmeasurable because it is so miniscule.

Last week, Adil's name became known to the Sawa management and he was fired. I received this email from him:

Dear Professor Dvorkin,
 
I have bad news to share with you...MBN-Radio Sawa has terminated my employment with them last week. I am taking them to court for wrongful discharge, in retaliation to a whistleblowing. 
 
I really feel that I am a victim of the journalistic ethics that you have taught at GU. I chose to perform ethically in a place (MBN) that did not uphold them, but I had to report to the people the "truth", and when I saw the corruption at MBN, I had no other choice but to speak up against it, otherwise, how could we ask the people to hold their elected officials accountable, if we cannot do the same at work! 

I wish Adil well. He has chosen in this instance to act ethically at a time when journalists in other media are unwilling to speak out against what they know is wrong...perhaps not in any criminal sense, but certainly as standards are lowered in a desperate effort to shore up ratings and circulation. It's good to know there are still some who are willing to do the right thing in journalism.

* Adil Awadh sent me this correction: I have never visited London in my life. I am sorry if I was not clear on this point in my discussions with you. In fact after I refused the ear cutting atrocities, I deserted the army and joined a London based resistance Iraqi group operating in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1996, headed by Eyad Allawi, who later became the Prime Minister in 2004.

Are Journalists Being Trained Not to be Journalists?

Until the recent economic downturn, news organizations would put their journalists through training in writing, editing and ethics. Broadcast organizations would spend time and money helping their on-air staff perfect their delivery through writing, coaching and performance training.

ABC News was known as exemplary in this, with reporters who weren't out on assignment, constantly practicing how to do "live" reports in the event of another major story, such as 9/11.

Now, much of that training money has been reduced. Many news organizations have even cut training completely out of budgets. One of the reasons for this was that journalism schools will fill in the training gaps. And to a certain extent, they do. But journalism schools can't replicate the unique cultures that exist independently in every news organization.

This is not a new phenomenon. Training budgets were often the first to be eliminated or redirected even during the so-called "good" times.

A recent conversation with a senior CBC News TV reporter has given me new cause for concern: a senior manager told her that full reports are "a waste of time and money." Audiences, it seems can be attracted by, and are more interested in "hits" - or delivering information straight to camera, without the benefit of an edited report.

Indeed, she informed me, reporters at the CBC are now known as "hitters" when they are assigned to provide those elements into the news programs. More and more reporters are expected to be "hitters" more than once a day. Fully crafted and edited reports for radio and television may soon be a thing of the past.

Equally troubling is the word that ex-CBC journalists (who now either teach or devote themselves full time to training) have been told that "Old CBC" people are no longer wanted or needed as trainers. Instead, trainers who have had absolutely no experience or exposure to public broadcasting are preferred.

The assumption here is that the CBC wants to move away from traditional broadcast journalism and into the new world of "hits." To use a Biblical simile, management in its God-like wisdom seems to regard journalists akin to the Children of Israel wandering in the desert, and that the old "Moses" generation of journalists must die out to allow the new "Joshua" generation (of "hitters?") to enter into the (multimedia) Promised Land.

If true, this is disturbing and discouraging. There may be financial reasons for doing this: reporting is more costly and more time consuming, compared to delivering "hits." Good journalism can be expensive and these days, in terms of delivering an audience, it's just not efficient.

But how this can serve the need to be informed more as engaged and informed citizens rather than just as passive and compliant media consumers? Poorer journalism makes people more susceptible to the lies and innuendo of talk radio hucksters and cable news bloviators.

The effects of an ill-informed citizenry are readily available for viewing these days.

The Dilemma for Gay and Lesbian Journalists

I was asked to speak to a gathering of young journalists attending the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association meeting in Montreal this week.

As a group, they are either just starting out on their careers, or about to finish their university and college degrees. They are all anticipating a life in journalism in the United States. I was impressed by their optimism and their enthusiasm for the craft. They were also, not a little nervous about what the future may hold.

We discussed at some length their status inside a news organization as "gay journalists." In effect, were they being forced to choose between being gay and being journalists?

I suggested to them that no journalist, who is any good, comes to work in the morning and abandons entirely what he or she is. Who you are should inform your journalism, I said. But it must not deform your journalism.

Newsrooms are now (for the most part) relatively open and tolerant places, even if some in the readership and in the audience may not be. But being a journalist cannot mean using the job to be an advocate. But it makes standing up against the group-think in a newsroom more difficult.

I used, as an example, how many Jewish journalists in American newsrooms felt uncomfortable about some of the coverage of the Second Intifada, which began in September 2000. But to be critical of what some felt was anti-Israel reporting meant that they were being forced to choose between being Jewish and being journalists. This is a longer story that I will return to eventually.

In Montreal, we discussed whether it is ever right for a journalist to turn down an assignment because he or she may feel unable to be fair about an issue. For example, does being a pro-choice mean that you can't/won't interview the head of Operation Rescue, a radical pro-life protest group?

The group agreed that being professional means never turning down an assignment. And we agreed that in fact, sending a gay reporter to interview an anti-gay spokesperson might make for a much more interesting story.

And we also discussed whether the gay community is fairly portrayed by mainstream media especially when it comes to covering gay pride parades. Would gay reporters cover those events differently?

Overall, I was impressed with these young journalists and learned something about how complicated their lives can be inside newsrooms today. Their take on our discussions can be found here.

Foreign Reporting In Decline?

The impact of the recession on news organizations can't be overstated. One place where the effect is most noticeable is in overseas reporting. The pressures on a reporter based in a local newsroom are both diluted and magnified by the foreign correspondent.

Diluted, because the reach of the assignment desk is diminished by time zones and distance when it comes to the foreign correspondent. Magnified, because the correspondent is out of touch for long periods of time, despite the availability of cell phones, email and satellites. The result is that the foreign correspondents who still practice the trade are increasingly an endangered species as news organizations look for cheaper ways to fill the news holes.

In a review of two books on foreign reporting for the Literary Review of Canada, I attempt to point out the necessity for excellent overseas reporting and the dangers of ego-driven journalism.

It can be found here.

US and Canadian Political Journalism: Different Yet Similar

The American Political Science Association is meeting in Toronto this weekend. I was asked to speak on a panel comparing and contrasting political coverage in the US and Canada.

Here are some thoughts on why both countries have news organizations that can't or won't provide the in-depth coverage that their citizens deserve:

1. US and Canadian journalism now operates under extreme financial duress that accentuates headline journalism.

2. Citizen-journalists, bloggers and stand-alone websites have risen up to fill in the gap left by mainstream media. This is the so-called "vacuum" effect.

3. Mainstream media spent so much in Iraq, they barely had enough to cover the campaigns.

4. Mainstream media are spending resources putting content on multiple outlets. This is turning media into "platform agnostics" (not the name of an indie band).

5. Investigative journalism will be increasingly contracted out to Politico, ProPublica and Global Post, among others.

6. Broadcasting and newspaper broadsheets will lose influence to "boutique" or "à la carte" journalism. This includes "pay for play" reporting: you want the story? You pay for it.

7. Financial pressures will exert an increasingly overt form of self-censorship.

8. US bloggers have more influence on the political system than Canadian bloggers.

9. Canadian political journalism is less deferential toward its politicians than are their American counterparts. This is due to the Parliamentary system where the leaders are forced to defend their policies in the rough-and-tumble of Prime Minister's Question Time.

10. Public broadcasting in the US plays a more crucial role than in Canada. In Canada, public broadcasting - as an idea - is still seen as a public virtue even as support declines. In the US, public broadcasting is a civic necessity worthy of support.