The Media's Growing Obsession with Crime Reporting

We are seeing a spike in crime reporting in our newspapers and in our broadcasts.

Has the Great Recession of 2008-2010 caused an outbreak of banditry, looting and murder as a result of the rise in unemployment? In fact, the opposite is true: the rate for violent crimes and crimes against property are falling according to police statistics in the US and Canada. Yet, the media, (with some exceptions) in their quest for ratings and circulation, seem endlessly fascinated with the lurid and the grotesque.

According to a 2006 Project for Excellence in Journalism study, local television news ("American journalism’s beloved but disrespected middle child") is most complicit in this trend.

While tv management argues that they are only giving the public what concerns them, critics say that this is nothing but panic-mongering and pandering.

The PEJ study looked at 28 supper hour tv shows in three cities and concluded that both management and the critics are right - but only to a point.

What does seem clear is that supper hour tv news give its viewers a massive nightly dose of weather, traffic and crime. Crime accounts for 48% of all programming. Serious stories are avoided ("too complicated") and national and international news is briefly mentioned, if at all, in announcer "voice-overs."

A subsequent study conducted jointly by PEJ with the Committee of Concerned Journalists showed that crime reporting is an audience killer - stories with a lot of flashing police lights and yellow tape actually drive the audience away, and measurably so.

While American tv news seems to be moving away from this trend as a result of the PEJ/CCJ survey, local CBC television news seems to have grabbed on to this losing format. CBC Radio and TV News is now filled with weather, traffic and crime.

Two reasons for this: one, crime reporting is cheaper to do, at a time when newsrooms are getting smaller even as the "news hole" is not. The newspapers and broadcasts must be filled.

Two, the CBC has hired Frank Magid and Associates to redesign newscasts. Magid was one of the more successful originators of the "if-it-bleed-it-leads" approach to tv news in the US. But as local tv seems less interested in this format, the CBC seems to be happy to adopt it.

This does not mean that crime reporting should be avoided. Sometime, specific crimes say something important about our society.

But devoting editorial resources to a story that is waning seems odd to me. Dan Rather has been quoted as saying that crime reporting in America has gone up 800% while during the same period (post-1970) crime rates have declined on average by 4%.

In Canada, the Conservative government is about to introduce a "get-tough-on-crime-bill" in the House of Commons. The CBC appears to be doing its best not to serve its audiences, but to serve the political interests of the people who ultimately control the CBC budgets.

Why the Media Loves an Uncomplicated Story

The election of a Republican in a Senate seat once considered to be the safest in America is causing much weeping and rending of garments on the left. One of the handiest whipping boys is of course, the media who are being targeted by elements in the blogosphere as the handmaidens of an inevitable Republican resurgence in midterm elections later this year.

It may be a premature reaction.

My reading is that much of the public distrust of the Obama healthcare plan is more a function of
Americans' anxiety about jobs, more than any other issue. As James Carville so eloquently phrased it in another political time, "It's the economy, stupid." Americans are historically predisposed to distrust anything governmental. It is part of their heritage of rebelliousness that stems from their revolt against the British crown as well as the deep commitment to self-reliance and volunteerism. Something as ungainly as a national health plan just doesn't make a lot of sense to many in the US. 

More immediate is the media coverage of health care negotiations. This was bound to create a backlash as the sausage factory view of legislation making was given more close-up shots than people wanted or needed. The sense of "celebratory politics" (Obama's election) gave way to the conflictual nature of  Parliamentary politics (health care reform). This gave Americans a deepening sense of gloom about the future. It wasn't the media's fault. In fact, the coverage I thought was deep and contextual. Americans have been without serious political journalism for so long that the view of the workings of Congress was a shock for many.  The intricacies of the legislative process did not give a comforting sense that much had changed.

But as Harold Wilson once remarked, "a week is a long time in politics." Obama's vision for America is a long way from being defeated.

In Canada, we are effectively without a government. Using a little-used Parliamentary manoevre, the government has prorogued Parliament and will reconvene after the February Olympics are over. Not many Canadians seem to mind, which is precisely what the Government anticipated. Instead Canadians are engaged in celebratory politics as they watch the Olympic flame make its way across Canada, stopping in small towns, Indian reserves and coffee shops in its way to Vancouver.  People are making the obvious comparison that this is much more pleasant than watching politicians slag each other every day in "question period."

The media's abandonment of serious policy issues has resulted in this retreat from responsible journalism. The question still remains: how do we make the interesting important, and the important, interesting? In the US, health care seems on the verge of being abandoned. In Canada, Parliamentary inquiries into whether Canadian troops knowingly handed over captured Afghan prisoners to be tortured has been suspended.

Haiti is now the main story on the news. But I am hearing from the public that it is already "too much." A woman from Ottawa on a call-in show today began weeping saying she can't take it anymore. Compassion fatigue is setting in. At the same time, tv reporters are finding the story overwhelming and are abandoning their traditional roles to be active participants in the rescue operations. A BBC reporter on "From Our Own Correspondent" sounded in shock and reported how all he could think of was if he had to live on the street with his own family.

Are these journalists still capable of doing a job of reporting? Or have they become social workers? My sense is that many of them seem ill-prepared to do what they were sent to Haiti to do. They seem lost in the powerful emotions of the place which may be understandable.  While the public is donating money in record amounts,  the audience is being abandoned without any context and unprepared for what may come next.

A Public TV Vision from the Aussies

My old mate Bruce Woolley from our CBC days has returned to his native Australia where he is involved with an exciting new public television service to be launched by the ABC. The money for this venture is coming from internal re-direction because information - not reality entertainment shows - is the priority.

Some inspiring words announcing the new channel from the managing director, Mark Scott:

I am delighted to announce that the ABC will launch Australia’s first free-to-air 24-hour television news channel in 2010.

News is an important part of our charter and in recent years we have worked hard to be able to deliver the best in local, national and international content. In the digital era, the audience demand has grown - viewers seek news services at the time they want and in the form they want. We have responded by expanding our abc.net.au news offerings, creating new services on mobile platforms and providing more live coverage of major events on television, radio and online.

Our 24-hour news channel is a logical but important next step: the ability to deliver high-quality, continuous and commercial-free coverage of major breaking stories in Australia and around the world, plus regular news updates and a range of new programs offering original reporting and analysis. The service will also be available to go live to 44 countries in Asia and the Pacific on Australia Network.

The ABC is delivering the news channel using funds freed-up by changes to our news production processes. We have not sought additional Government funding and the channel will be launched by making use of our existing High Definition spectrum.

We are in the best position to deliver this service to the Australian public. As they have already paid for ABC services, we do not need to fund the news expansion through advertising or subscription. The service will be independent and available at no additional charge.

We can also take advantage of the largest investment already made by any Australian broadcaster: eight state and territory news rooms, 60 local regional newsrooms and 12 international bureaux, already creating high-quality news content that will be available to the new venture.

The new channel represents the biggest expansion to our news operation in decades. It is a vital step to help fulfilling our charter in the digital age and will help us to keep more Australians informed, in more ways, more often, every day of the year.

"Cyberombudsmen" and the Evolution of Media Accountability

[This has been written as part of a study on the future of media accountability for UNESCO]


Much has been written and spoken about the future of journalism. Can financially challenged news organizations still maintain their traditional role in sustaining democratic values and institutions? What is the value of mainstream media when the Internet seems to be attracting more attention and revenue? And how can media organizations sustain the trust of their readers, listeners and viewers?


Important questions, for which there is no single or easy answer.


Mainstream media are increasingly on the defensive about their continued role at a time when the public is seeking information in other ways and in other places such as the Internet. This has allowed some media critics - usually bloggers - to accuse legacy journalism of increasing irrelevance. And they may be right: circulations and ratings are in decline and media organizations are responding by concentrating on "infotainment," celebrity journalism and crime reporting.


In a constant search for more efficiencies, new organization are rationalizing resources and seeking that elusive younger demographic by beefing up their websites, and abandoning more expensive aspects such as investigative reporting. Many are letting go of their most experienced editors and reporters, including ombudsmen.


We are in an existential crisis for journalism: in effect, can journalism survive without journalists? We seem to be heading in that direction. The same question could be asked of news ombudsmen - those independent, in house critics and mediators between the public and the news organization. So might news organizations rely on outside bloggers
rather than in-house ombudsmen?


The Internet is both the villain and the savior for media organizations: on the one hand, managers are certain that their audiences are being lured away by the siren song of the blogosphere; on the other hand, in-house bloggers and websites are proliferating everywhere. Who will win this tug-of-war?


The value of an ombudsman seems more urgent than ever. Media critics in cyberspace have shown real value in channeling the concerns of the public. But holding media to account and to greater transparency seems more ably done by ombudsmen. Can these two essential elements be joined for the benefit of citizens?

One way would be for ombudsmen to be more open and aware of the criticisms that abound in the blogosphere. Ombudsmen are uniquely situated and qualified to act as that bridge that can connect the public hunger for accountability with the news organization's acknowledgment that they must do a better job.


Ombudsman can and must be in the forefront of this linkage by being advocates for a "Bloggers' Ethics Guide." One of the better ones can be found at www.cyberjournalist.net.


Just like the ethics guides for other legacy media, cyberjournalist.net advocates the following for bloggers:


1. Be honest and fair
       - never plagiarize
       - identify and link whenever possible
       - distinguish between fact and opinion


2. Minimize harm


3. Understand the differences between Private and Public


4. Be accountable
     - admit mistakes and correct them promptly
     - invite dialogue
     - disclose conflicts of interest, affiliations, personal agendas, etc.
     - deny special treatment to advertisers, friends, special interests


5. Beware of making deals
     - develop your instincts around information exchanges
     - disclose favors
     - expose unethical practices


As cyberjournalism become more prominent, "legacy" ombudsmen can have a positive role in nurturing ethical behavior. In the process, the sharing of knowledge can only serve to benefit the public who need reliable and transparent information, wherever they seek it.


*     *     *     *     *     *


That's the easy part. Those of us who have worked as ombudsmen inside mainstream media organizations have a good idea of how the job works, or not. When done correctly, it is a demanding task, usually thankless, and one that requires seven day a week attention. 

In retrospect, I think there may have been an inherent passivity. Ombudsmen usually wait for the public to identify an area of concern, before moving to action. But that more leisurely approach is bound to end as the public impatience for change grows. Content in moving to the web, and so must ombudsmen.


Imagine being an ombudsman in cyberspace with its lack of boundaries, deadlines and limitations. A useful analogy would be playing three-dimensional chess where the players may not always anticipate where the next attack might come from.


We need a new institution. Let's call it "cyberombudsmen."


Being a "cyberombudsman" will require new skills because it will demand the same viral approach as the new medium itself requires. That will mean taking a more pro-active role, seeking online the discussion and issues and criticisms that could have an impact on journalism. To borrow a sports analogy, it means playing a lot more "offense" and less on "defense."


This new role will be one where the skills of key word searches, algorithms and a constant awareness of who is blogging will be joined to create this new form of ombudsmanship. In effect, this next generation of "cyberombudsman" will bridge not only traditional media and traditional audiences. He or she will bridge the gap between traditional media and their rapidly proliferating corps of digital and citizen critics.


This means that in order for journalism to fulfill its own critical role as a lynch pin for democratic values, media organizations and ombudsmen need to reassess their roles and relationships - with each other and with the rapidly changing audiences who remain hungry for accountability and integrity.


The credibility of a news organization now rest increasingly on its willingness to admit mistakes and to allow the public to be part of the once mysterious process of news. Citizen journalists feel they have the right to challenge legacy media. Unfortunately some of them, too often attempt this without the knowledge or the ethical capacity to do this effectively.


The old model of the ombudsman as the solitary, experienced and somewhat distant newsroom figure needs to change. The way to make this work is to engage our younger journalistic colleagues who bring new skills and fresh perspectives and who can be the next generation of "cyberombudsmen." Combining their talents with the experience of the seasoned ombudsmen will create this urgently needed agency of digital democracy.

Sclerosis at CBC News?

A chat with a former colleague at CBC revealed the extent of the problem.

In an effort to be more efficient and to demonstrate to its political masters and other critics that the Crown Corporation has mended its once profligate ways, it now handles and disburses taxpayers' money with crisp efficiency. To do this, a centralized editorial assignment system has been implemented.

Known inside the CBC as the "Hub," the goal is to insure that reporter assignments, camera crew allocations and story treatments are rational and rationalized for maximum exposure on CBC Television, Radio and online at CBC.ca.

As my friend showed me on the internal CBC computer system, the daily story assignment is handed out every morning. No other assignments may be made without the permission of the editors on the "Hub." The subject matter may not deviate from the dictat of the "Hub." This means that the range of stories handled by the CBC on any given day has been drastically reduced.

To my eyes and ears, there is more evident sharing of content and presumably of resources. A TV host did an interview with a survivor of the Haitian earthquake which I heard on CBC Radio. Radio tracked down a Canadian who studied Arabic with the so-called "knicker bomber," Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. On a newscast, I heard a first-hand, if somewhat predictable description of what this young Nigerian was like ("He was quiet and studious. I never thought he would do something like this..."). The audio was shared and aired on CBC TV. So there are some important editorial synergies that are being developed.

There is a down side to this. One anecdote: CBC Montreal's local supper hour newscast had an exclusive interview with a former Mafioso. A good local story since an organized crime turf war has broken out and the son of a jailed don was shot to death recently. The Montreal show led with that story.

The "Hub" in Toronto had ordered that the lead should be the death in Ontario of a child with H1N1. When that order was ignored, the executive producer in Montreal found herself reprimanded by management.

The worry among the demoralized staff is that a bureaucratic mechanism has now imposed itself with the effect of stifling journalistic initiative. Stories that might make good radio but without a visual component are rejected. A radio reporter proposed a series of stories from Russia, but without the agreement of the tv side, it was vetoed.

The tendency to pack journalism is already far advanced, both inside and outside the CBC. This "Hub" concept will only exacerbate that trend. Until the editors and managers learn to loosen their choke hold, the value of independent journalism and initiative will suffer. But the message around CBC News these days is all about cutting costs and demonstrating efficiency and not it seems, about serving the audiences.

Why Old Media Still Count

 From the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz:

With the explosion of media outlets, where is the reporting -- the actual unearthing of new facts -- coming from these days? 

If a study of how news is made in Baltimore is any indication, the answer is: 95 percent from the old media, mostly newspapers.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism examined 53 outlets that regularly cover Baltimore over the course of one week last July. In looking at six major news stories, the group found that 83 percent of them -- in print, television, radio, blogs and Web sites -- were essentially repetitive. "Much of the 'news' people receive contains no original reporting," the study says. "Fully eight out of 10 stories studied simply repeated or repackaged previously published information."

Among the remaining stories that advanced the ball, 61 percent came from newspapers -- from the Baltimore Sun to specialty publications -- followed by 28 percent from local TV stations and 7 percent from radio. Twitter and local Web sites "played only a limited role: mainly an alert system and a way to disseminate stories from other places." One exception: a story noticed by a local blog involving a state plan to put listening devices on buses to deter crime, which was quickly dropped after the report on Maryland Politics Watch.

Still, newspapers aren't what they used to be. In covering budget cuts ordered by Gov. Martin O'Malley, the Sun carried seven articles -- compared with 49 during a similar round of cutbacks in 1991. The Washington Post ran four pieces, compared with 12 during the earlier cutbacks. One sign of the times: a Sun correspondent first reported the shooting of two police officers on his Twitter feed.

Should Journalists Cover a "Perp Walk?"

In the US, there is a long established newspaper and television news tradition known as the "perp (perpetrator) walk."

The term is American slang. It refers to the police practice of intentionally parading an arrested suspect through a public place so that the media may observe and record the event. The suspect is typically handcuffed or otherwise restrained.
The media are there because the police quietly and "unofficially" let it be known that a person of notoriety will be brought out in handcuffs at a specific time and place.

It is the irresistible "photo op" and assignment editors rarely turn down an chance to capture the moment. This has been especially true when accused members of organized crime are arrested. Most recently, Bernie Madoff also had his moment of "perp walk" fame. But that is increasingly rare.

In the US, the "perp walk" may be going the way of the snap brim fedora with a press pass.
Recent cases in which suspects were trotted out before the waiting media have had the cases dismissed for violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable arrest.

A trial court and the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed police had acted unreasonably and invaded a suspect's privacy by staging a perp walk that was "an inherently fictional dramatization" with "no legitimate law enforcement justification."

In Canada, the practice was a lot less visible, partly because it was felt that the accused had a right to a day in court without a lot of pre-trial publicity. In high profile cases, there were always exceptions to the rule.

But a recent flurry of "perp walks" in Toronto shows that the habit may have moved north. Recently a case involving the local animal rescue league has given the media more "perp walks" than usual. The Toronto Humane Society has been accused of neglecting the animals in its care. The provincial regulatory body, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals pressed charges and a number of THS officials were arrested in plain view of the pre-assembled media.

The story took a bizarre turn when the OSPCA had one of its own animal rescuers arrested for "personating (sic) a peace officer and one of perjury..." He too was subjected to a "perp walk."

The presence of so much media raises some interesting questions:

1. Who exactly is alerting the media? The police? The media relations people at the two humane societies?
2. Will pre-trial publicity have any effect on the defendants right to a fair trial? My guess is probably not since a larger percentage of Canadian felony trials are held before a judge alone. The preponderance of jury trials is still an American tradition.
3. Should this media "spin" a.k.a, "perp walk" be resisted by the media?

It may be difficult to resist. More newsrooms are operating with reduced editorial staffs. The "gift" of a "perp walk" provided by the police is a way of filling up the newscast and the front page with dramatic visuals. At the same time, it reinforces the tendency toward pack journalism.

Because the "perp walk" can be so compelling (if somewhat meaningless), most journalists oppose any official curtailing of perp walks. The (US) Society of Professional Journalist's Code of Ethics makes these points:

• Journalists should minimize harm by balancing a criminal suspect's fair trial rights with the public's right to be informed.
• Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
• Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.

Shania to Host Heavyweight CBC Radio Show? "That Don't Impress Me Much"

It is possible. I shouldn't completely dismiss the idea out of hand that a successful country and western singer could bring the journalistic instincts, radio sensibilities and intellectual heft required.

Shania Twain is of course, the well-known chanteuse from Timmins, a mining town in northern Ontario.

"The Current" is one of the better public affairs programs on CBC Radio. It airs five days a week from 8:30 to 10 am and has the curiosity, scope and rigor of the best of what CBC offers.

So when it was announced this morning that she will "guest host" tomorrow, I thought I must have misheard the regular host, Anna Maria Tremonti, a seasoned reporter on radio and tv, and foreign correspondent. But that announcement was followed by a quick interview with Ms. Twain who declared herself "excited" and "nervous" at the prospect of her upcoming interview with the Queen of Jordan. She also talked about her elevation to a judgeship on "American Idol" and the new charity she has started.

My guess is that Twain will do a reasonable job. Fortunately, the editorial strength of a show like "The Current" doesn't rest solely with the host, but with the professionalism of the producers, editors and researchers. They are the ones who certainly wouldn't let gaffes and "Entertainment Tonight" values on the air. Would they?

But whoever came up with the idea that someone like Tremonti can be "replaced" - even for a day - by a non-journalist show business personality, has done significant damage to the credibility that CBC Radio once personified.

Can "The National with Céline Dion" be far behind?

The Deaths of Two Journalistic Mentors

Two friends passed away this week. They could not have been more different, yet they shared some remarkable qualities.

Les Nirenberg was an actor, a director and a tv documentary maker. He died in Toronto of a stroke after many years of ill health.

Les and I met in Montreal in 1974. I was fresh out of grad school and Les was doing a series of inserts for the nightly local tv news on the CBC. Along with his sidekick Nick Auf der Maur, they invented a form of tv news and later a full program that they called "Quelque Show" - bilingual pun on the French word "quelquechose" meaning "something."

That "something" was indeed something; Montrealers had never seen anything like it. Today it would be called "reality television." Les played the role of the jolly fat man who never could be offended. Nick was the artful, sardonic, "been-there-seen-that" man about town. (He eventually left journalism and ran and won a seat on Montreal's city council where he effectively played the political gadfly, driving the then-mayor of Montreal crazy with embarrassing questions in council meetings). The French language media also found Nick (and Les) to be unique Montreal treasures. A columnist coined a new word in French to describe them: they wasn't a Montrealers (Montréalais); they were  "Montréalistes!"

Les and I became friends. He was gracious with his time and taught me (the refugee from grad school) the rudiments of street smart tv reporting ("Don't wiggle the mike back and forth. If someone won't answer, just leave the mike in front of him and wait for him to fill up the embarrassing silence. Remember when you are editing the film, you'll always have the last word..." Stuff like that).

Les was literally larger than life and struggled with his weight for years. At the same time, he used it as a prop to get acting jobs and to be the disarming jolly guy who gets away with asking all sorts of intrusive questions.

For the last few years, Les lived in a home for retired actors in Toronto (yes, they still have those places). We planned on getting together but his health wouldn't let him. I am sorry I didn't make more of an effort to go see him.

Deborah Howell was an editor, an ombudsman, a mentor and role model for young journalists. She was on vacation in New Zealand when she stepped out into a street to take a photo and was stuck by a car and killed.

I met Deborah Howell when she became the ombudsman at the Washington Post. An effervescent and tough Texas gal, she was more than a match for the hard-boiled types in the newsroom. She and I shared more than a couple of instances where the readers of the Post and the listeners to NPR disagreed with something we wrote.

Deb mistakenly said that the disgraced Jack Abramoff had been given money by Democrats which wasn't exactly true. He did receive some money but very indirectly and much less than the direct cash he received from the Republicans. But the acrimony and viciousness poured on Deborah from the left was inhuman. It was so intense that the Post had to shut down their email system for a time.

She may have privately found this pressure unwarranted but when we talked about it, she assured me that she could handle it. We would meet with other Washington area ombudsmen once a month to swap stories, share battle scars and reassure ourselves that the value of the job to the public was worth it.

As her family says about her:

Deborah was hilarious. Her sense of humor had a healthy dose of bawdiness and she was known for the prevalence and precision of her profanity. Her frequent laughter leapt out of her like a child bursting out of class on the last day of school.

Deborah was extremely sensitive. Underneath her one-of-the-boys, newsroom toughness, she was deeply affected by the world around her. She was attuned to multiple frequencies of human behavior. Sometimes that meant that she was easily hurt. But it also meant that she was blessed with tremendous compassion.

Deborah's family has created an scholarship fund in her name at the University of Texas. It will support a female student in her sophomore year in journalism.   

If these two very different people had anything in common (they never met, of course) it was their unending curiosity about the world. Les would regularly go to a Jewish nursing home in Toronto to talk to those peppery inmates about the media. Those seniors will miss his warmth. Deborah was always encouraging to young journalists. And the Organization of News Ombudsmen has lost a good and valued friend and colleague.

Two Years of "Now The Details"

As of January 1, 2010, this blog will be in its third year. Including the columns written for NPR while ombudsman, I've been doing this for ten years! It's been (mostly) therapy for me and I hope, occasionally illuminating for readers. The feedback has been continually enlightening and once in a while, unsettling (which is as it should be, I suppose).

George Steiner (among others) says of writing that it is an addiction. At a time of diminishing optimism on the future of journalism, writing is an act of assertion that there are ideas worth sharing. And to share them is a counter-balance to the immodest trivialities of journalism and the nervous enticements of media organizations.

In 2009 media organizations believed that by serving our needs, they might restore themselves to some sort of financial wholeness. And the definition of our needs often had less to do with how we see our lives, but how these media organizations imagined us.

Steiner asks "how are we to grasp psychologically, socially, the capacity of human being to perform, to respond to, say Bach or Schubert in the evening, and to torture other human beings the next morning...?  I am still waiting for the answer," says he.

Neil Postman suggested that by using media to avoid reality, we are "amusing ourselves to death." Both Postman and Steiner ask the tough questions that intellectuals must. But most human beings who consume media don't ask those sorts of questions because we don't have the answers.

Instead, the rest of us look to media to represent some sort of moral and aesthetic landscape that confirms our own sense of reality. It is a form of intellectual comfort food and not a bad selection from the smorgasbord of life. It may be escapism, but to paraphrase Eliot, "mankind cannot stand too much reality." For the progressive journalists among us who wish only to offer nutritious morsels, we can only respond that the "Broccoli Broadcasting Corporation" may not be ultimately satisfying. The audience will always be a disappointment to the ideologues of left and right. 

If media could only offer a palette of well-told stories full of information, culture, human events with a side of humor. To do any less is to defeat our needs as citizens and diminish our ability to make sense of the world. In 2010, I hope that media can recover their sense of what we need along with what we want.

A word of thanks to you all. And best wishes for 2010.