Fox News and objectivity: the joke’s on us

I’ll admit that I haven’t seen many of the speeches at the Obama/Biden/Clinton convention. Most of the big hitters don’t make it to the plate until after I’m asleep at 10 p.m. But I do catch a lot of the cable news shows. That’s fun these days because the cable news pundits on CNN, MSNBS and Fox have finally abandoned the notion that objectivity is the standard for news reporting. Game on.

And of all the changes taking place now that are reshaping the news media — the fact that the era of “he said/she said” journalism is all but over is huge. That’s one of the reasons for the success of The Huffington Post. You see this point-of-view journalism in virtually every blog being written now by reporters and other pundits. And you have commentators — like Lou Dobbs on CNN — who have gained big audiences and ratings by not even pretending to be fair and balanced.

Then you have Jon Stewart. He’s broadcasting The Daily Show (the primary source of news for the new wave of young voters, IMO) from the convention. And he had some thoughts about the “real” news business earlier this week, as reported by Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post article, “No Joke: Jon Stewart Takes Aim At 24-Hour Cable News Beast.”

Jon Stewart ripped the cable news networks Monday as a “brutish, slow-witted beast” and castigated Fox News in particular as “an appendage of the Republican Party.”

Wearing a gray T-shirt, khaki pants and a healthy stubble, the “Daily Show” host told reporters at a University of Denver breakfast that Fox’s “fair and balanced” slogan is an insult “to people with brains” and that only “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace “saves that network from slapping on a bumper sticker. . . . Barack Obama could cure cancer and they’d figure out a way to frame it as an economic disaster.”

Ouch. But hey. Maybe Stewart knows what he is talking about. After all, The New York Times suggested that he is the most trusted man in America.

But it is a change now working its way throughout journalism — and it doesn’t just involve Fox News. If Fox is heading right — then MSNBC is racing just as hard in the opposite direction. We will see how soon The New York Times, Washington Post, et al, get into the race. My guess is pretty soon.

And one more thing about the story involving Stewart and Fox News. Kurtz asked for a comment from the news guys and gals. Here it is — and it’s pathetic, from the standpoint of public relations and journalism.

A Fox News spokesman, who was authorized to give the network’s response to Stewart’s comments but declined to be named, replied that “Jon’s clearly out of touch,” citing a Pew Research Center study showing the network has the most balanced audience in cable news, 39 percent Republicans and 33 percent Democrats. “But being out of touch with mainstream America is nothing new to Jon, as evidenced by the crash-and-burn ratings of this year’s Oscars telecast.”

The Fox News spokesman declined to be named; and Kurtz let him/her get away with it.

And you wonder why more and more people get their news from The Daily Show.

LOL

PRWeek and writers who change lives

Actually, there is no relationship between PRWeek — and writers who change lives. But I’ll touch on both topics in the next few paragraphs. What got me thinking about this during my run this morning were two things: the contest PRWeek is holding to recognize (I guess) the most popular/important PR blog and the death Sunday of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Here’s the blurb about the PRWeek contest:

As part of its 10^th anniversary celebration, PRWeek is honoring one of the most important technological advancements in content distribution of the past 10 years: the blog. The celebration comes by way of a competition between 32 blogs selected by PRWeek staff and others in the industry. The tournament will take place over five weeks. To view all participants, including the current matchups, click here.

That’s neat. Some promotion for the A-list bloggers — and a way for PRWeek to reach potential readers throughout the blogosphere. We take ourselves way too seriously in public relations. So I hope this contest is a way to have some fun while giving a boost to those who take the time to write about public relations and other matters. I think sharing views and insights with each other is important, actually.

And I also think that the PRWeek contest could be an opportunity to look at the role of blogging in public relations — and its importance to journalism and communication in general. I started writing this blog with the idea that it was a way to share my views — and also to discuss topics with others. Gee. Dare I say it: a conversation. That hasn’t been the case here certainly. And I see very little of that on public relations blogs or others. Comments? Yeah. Some blogs generate more than others. But conversations. In some cases yes. For most, no. Maybe I don’t read enough of the A-list PR blogs.

Yet blogging is — IMO — basically another form of one-way communication. It gives a lot of people like me the opportunity to step up on the soapbox. But I don’t think it is really a conversation unless someone says something back to me — then me to them, on and on. That’s certainly the case on most newspaper blogs (read some on The New York Times, for example) or sites like The Huffington Post. A writer posts a story — and readers jump in with comments. But no conversation.

Here’s a link to segment on a recent “Root of all Evil” — where Lewis Black and others debated which is more evil: Ultimate Fighting or Blogging. The segment looks at what would have happened to the Declaration of Independence if it had contained a comments page. Go the the site and click on the link: Ultimate Fighters vs. Bloggers — Oswalt on Bloggers. It’s a hoot. Also true, unfortunately.

And then there is Solzhenitsyn. He changed lives. And he did it the old-fashioned way. With pen and paper. If you don’t read anything else today, or this week, read this article by Anne Applebaum in Slate: “How Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago Changed the World.”

OK. Let’s see — “As part of its 10^th anniversary celebration, PRWeek is honoring one of the most important technological advancements in content distribution of the past 10 years: the blog.”

Technological advancement. Yes. Changing the world? Well, maybe one day. But you have to have something to say. And if we are selling blogging as being part of a conversation, then shouldn’t we, ah, talk?

So what did Jesse say?

As my custom late afternoon, I was enjoying a few double gin and tonics and watching CNN, the Situation Room. The big story? Rev. Jesse Jackson was beside himself with apologies for something he said about Barack Obama and was captured on a “hot microphone.” Whatever that is. Probably should ask George Allen, late of the Senate from Virginia.

After an hour or so of listening to CNN promote this — and interview experts about the political fallout real or imagined, what did Jesse say? Here’s the story, as reported on the CNN Web site.

NEW YORK (CNN) — The Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized Wednesday for “crude and hurtful” remarks he made about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama after finishing an interview with a Fox News correspondent.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized to Sen. Obama’s campaign Wednesday over “hurtful” remarks.

Jackson told CNN’s “Situation Room” that a “hot” microphone caught a part of conversation he was having with a fellow guest at the studio.

He said he made a comment about Obama “speaking down black people” followed by a crude remark.

“It was very private” he said, adding later, if “any hurt or harm has been caused to his campaign, I apologize.” Watch more of Jackson’s apology on CNN »

The Obama campaign had no immediate comment.

Jackson’s apology came a few hours before Fox News planned to air the remarks.

“I feel very distressed because I’m supportive of this campaign and with the senator,” Jackson told CNN. “I was in a conversation with a fellow guest on Sunday. He asked about Barack’s speeches lately at the black churches. I said he comes down as speaking down to black people.”

He said Obama’s message to black voters must be broader and serve as more than a “moral challenge.”

The black community is faced with high levels of unemployment, home foreclosures and violence, “so we have some real serious issues — not just moral issues,” he said.

However, Jackson said after finding out about the open microphone, he immediately contacted the Obama campaign to apologize.

So what did Jesse say? I don’t know. CNN — and NBC — told me everything else except that. Guess I’ll have to wait for it to appear on YouTube.

And truthfully, I don’t give a rat’s ass what Jackson said. But why won’t the networks report it? “The public’s right to know.” He,he, he, he. I think this says a lot about what has killed journalism in this country. Lack of guts. Did he say something so offensive that it can’t be reported? Good grief. Wonder what Don Imus has to say about this?

I also think it is interesting that reporters criticize PR people for not disclosing everything, including the secret formula to Coke. Is there any group that caters to its own self-interest more than journalists? Don’t think so. They even employ “reader advocates” to spin the company line. Gee. Wonder if a PR guy could get away with the spin we see in those columns? (I’m grumpy today. After my run I had to go to the dentist. Couldn’t that be considered a modest form of waterboarding?)

OK gang. Let’s see who is going to step up and tell the truth on the Jesse Jackson story. Bet it won’t be the traditional media. Although I have some hope for Howard Kurtz and The Washington Post. And then there is always Drudge and Huffington. Are they traditional media these days? Or new media?

We’ll see.

Update: Well, I guess O’Reilly has the story on Fox News.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized Wednesday for saying Barack Obama is “talking down to black people” during what he thought was a private conversation with a FOX News reporter Sunday.

Jackson was speaking at the time about Obama’s speeches in black churches and his support for faith-based charities. Jackson added, “I want to cut his nuts off.”

Uh, “cut his nuts off.” Ouch.

Willie Randolph and e-mail firings

June really can be the best time to run here in Northeast Ohio. This morning at 5 a.m.: cool, light breeze, even some daylight. Can’t beat that. And just to show that I wasn’t wasting my time out there pounding the concrete, I was thinking about Willie Randolph — recently fired manager of the New York Mets.

Ouch. That’s a tough word: fired. I guess that’s why you don’t see it used much in business, government, nonprofits and education. Someone is laid off. Let go. Part of a reduction in force, etc.

And I always chuckled when writing the announcements about the goings of senior managers.

“Gary Gasbag is giving up his multimillion-dollar salary to spend more time with his family.”

Or.

“Gary Gasbag is leaving the company to pursue other interests.”

Not many corporate announcements say: “Gary Gasbag was a douche bag, and the Board had to get rid of him before he totally destroyed the company.” If I find one of those announcements I’ll share it with you.

Truth. Honesty. Disclosure. Not the hallmark of those kind of announcements. Trust me. Unfortunately, I’ve been there.

But poor Willie Randolph. He got fired. But at least his boss, Mets General Manager Omar Minaya, had the class and the balls to tell him in person, face to face. That’s not always the case these days. More and more managers — and organizations — love to hide behind the curtain and send e-mail messages to employees letting them know they are fired, laid off, whatever.

The New York Times talked about this and other matters in an article titled “In Life, as in Baseball, Getting Fired is an Opening for a Comeback.” Here are the first two paragraphs of the article:

Kerry Leishman’s boss did not bother to say, “You’re fired,” face to face. He sent her the news in a text message.

if (acm.rc) acm.rc.write();“He wrote, ‘I wanted to do this in person, but I’m sick,’ ” she said, recalling how she lost her bartending job at a financial district restaurant. “ ‘Don’t come in, but drop off the keys.’ ”

Fortunately I never had to fire someone because of poor job performance. But I did several times have to tell people that they would no longer have a job because of staff cutbacks. And during my time at Goodrich we closed a number of manufacturing and office facilities — affecting the lives of thousands of people. And I use the word people — rather than employees. If there is any communication that demands respect and consideration for the individuals involved and their families this is it.

And it’s never easy — but I sure hope we aren’t heading down the road where organizations become so insensitive that managers believe e-mail will substitute for face-to-face communication. It doesn’t.

At least Willie Randolph heard it directly from the boss.

This Bud’s for — the USA

I went to the Cleveland Indians game Sunday. Perfect day. Great game. The Indians won. But when you’re blogging you’re never really off the clock.

Here’s what I mean. The scoreboard at the Jake (oops, refuse to remember the new stadium name) proudly displays a Budweiser logo that appears to extend from left field to center. So what was I thinking about? A frosty brew on a warm, sunny day. Nah. I was thinking that Budweiser — actually Anheuser-Busch — is in the throes of a hostile takeover attempt by InBev, the world’s largest brewer and maker of Stella Artois, Beck’s and Bass.

It’s a deal currently valued at some $46.4 billion. But even at that it appears that the Busch family, which controls a lot but apparently not a majority of the stock, is finding the transaction hard to swallow. That from a public relations perspective raises some issues. And Jim Horton, on his blog, Online Public Relations Thoughts, gets right to the heart of the matter in a post, Tough Decisions.

“The CEO of brewer, Anheuser-Busch, faces a tough decision. The company has always been dominated by one family, even though it is publicly held. The family has over many decades reinforced the perception that it is a family company. Now comes an all-cash bid to shareholders that will be hard for the family to turn down. It will be interesting if the family goes quietly or if it decides to mount a communications defense. Either way, the CEO is under pressure. Do what is best for shareholders or do what is best for the family?”

Yahoo faced a somewhat similar situation recently — as it considered a bid from Microsoft, not once but several times. In the end, Yahoo struck a deal with Google that allows the company to remain independent — but arguably was not in the best interest of shareholders. Here’s Joe Nocera’s take on this in The New York Times Saturday in his column titled “Oh Jerry, It’s No Longer Your Baby.

To: Jerry Yang

Jerry Yang/Paul J. Richards/A.F.P. — Getty Images

From: Joe Nocera

Re: Shafting Yahoo’s Shareholders

Dear Jerry,

Congratulations — you pulled it off. You got Microsoft to walk away from your beloved Yahoo for good. The final word went out on Thursday. There isn’t going to be any megamerger. No smaller deal to sell your search business, or take a minority stake, either. As Yahoo’s co-founder and chief executive, you’re undoubtedly thrilled. But your shareholders sure aren’t.

Ouch. Well, I guess we’ll see what happens with Budweiser and Anheuser-Busch. And I guess part of me is rooting for the Busch family on this one. Yahoo? Well, does it really matter if it is part of the evil empire (Microsoft) or on its own battling anti-trust issues related to its deal with Google? Nah. But Budweiser. The Great American Lager. That seems like it should be right up there with Mom, apple pie and Chevrolet. You know. Things that defined this country back when the Indians last won the World Series. (Go ahead. Google it. Or Yahoo it.) InBev is based in Belgium. Do they even play baseball in Belgium?

Anyway, I couldn’t find any Budweiser at the Jake Sunday.

So I had a Harp. Actually several. Harp is made by Diageo, a multinational brewer headquartered in London.

So it goes.

The Scotty: Spotlighting ineptness in media relations

It’s tough being a good spokesperson. You have to understand the story. You want to represent your organization well — without spinning. You want to be honest, accurate and open while recognizing that there are going to be times when you can’t disclose everything that a reporter may want or ask for.

Scott McClellan serves as an example of what you don’t want to be. Saying a lot without really saying anything. Misleading reporters and the public. Having misgivings about the accuracy of information but presenting it as fact anyway. So let’s give McClellan the first Scotty — an award that recognizes the reasons why reporters and others hold many (most?) public relations spokespersons in such low regard.

And since the story about McClellan and his book is pretty much history now, let’s see if we can’t find some other examples to help keep the spotlight on what should be an honest, accurate and open exchange of information that serves the organization and public. But often isn’t.

For instance, the Akron Beacon Journal printed an Associated Press story last Saturday about Mexican labor unions agreeing to lower wages in order to compete with China — “Auto paycuts head south.” The issue is that wages could be as low as $1.50 an hour. The story indicates that these lower wages — and wage concessions — were the key for Ford to add as many as 4,500 jobs to build cars at a plant in Cuautitlan, near Mexico City. Something tells me that this isn’t something that Ford is thrilled to disclose in the United States because of a workforce here that is both shrinking and worried about wages. Well, here’s from the article:

Ford spokeswoman Alejandra Acevedo said she did not know what starting wages for new hires at Cuautitlan would be, but she acknowledged that to win the jobs, the plant had to compete against other Ford facilities worldwide.

Ah, c’mon. Alejandra, I have a suggestion for you. Ask someone. I’ll bet Ford CEO Alan Mulally knows. He was in Mexico City last week. If he doesn’t know then there is an even bigger problem than moving jobs south where workers earn $1.50 an hour. Maybe. And to give you the benefit of the doubt, if there is a reason why you can’t disclose this information, then say it. “I don’t know.” Hmm.

For not asking — or not telling — here’s your Scotty. Display it proudly.

Scott McClellan and public relations ethics

There are days when I just can’t wait to get out on the road at 5 a.m. for my five-mile run. Today was one of them. Perfect weather. And the prospect of having something interesting to think about: PRSA’s defense of professionalism in public relations.

I first noticed this when I checked my e-mail: “Urgent News From PRSA…” Sent at 10:05 Sunday night. (For my running friends, poets and most everyone else who could care less about this, PRSA stands for Public Relations Society of America.) Here’s the message: “PRSA today submitted a letter in response to a commentary on CBS Sunday Morning by legal analyst Andrew Cohen in which he challenged the integrity of the public relations profession.”

OMG. Have we really reached the point in this country where someone with a law degree is smug enough to question the integrity of anyone else? I digress. (But Cohen also has a degree in journalism; that moves him up a notch. I guess.)

Actually, this is an important issue — one that should be taken seriously. I’ve argued on this blog many times that ethics and professionalism form the foundation for public relations. And absent ethics and professionalism, public relations people end up like, well, Scott McClellan.

Here’s from Cohen’s commentary:

But in every tragic drama comes a moment of comedic Zen. And in L’Affair McClellan, that has come from the public relations community, where some now wonder whether the former flack violated the “ethics” of his craft.

Apparently, an industry the very essence of which is to try to convince people that a turkey is really an eagle has a rule that condemns lying.

The Public Relations Society of America states: “We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent…” This clause strikes me as if the Burglars Association of America had as its creed “Thou Shalt Not Steal.”

Show me a PR person who is “accurate” and “truthful,” and I’ll show you a PR person who is unemployed.

Ouch. I wonder if Cohen believes that all journalists are liars and plagarists in the mold of Jayson Blair? I digress again.

So I give PRSA credit for responding — although I believe that the organization should have denounced McClellan and taken a public stand on this issue — ethics and professionalism — when it first surfaced last week. Here’s from the PRSA statement by Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Julin:

Regarding your commentary on today’s CBS Sunday Morning, the Board of Directors of the Public Relations Society finds it imperative to affirm the professionalism of public relations practitioners and to take exception with what we regard as a misguided opinion. The PRSA Code of Ethics, to which all members pledge, embodies a strict set of guidelines defining ethical and professional practice in public relations. Professionals who meet the Code’s standards stand in stark contrast to the simplistic, erroneous characterization of the profession you presented.

Contrary to baseless assertions, truth and accuracy are the bread and butter of the public relations profession. In a business where success hinges on critical relationships built over many years with clients, journalists and a Web 2.0-empowered public, one’s credibility is the singular badge of viability. All professionals, including attorneys, accountants and physicians, aspire to ethical standards, and public relations professionals are no different, always striving for the ideal.

Absolutely correct. Unfortunately, though, it’s a very general statement — and like the PRSA Code of Ethics in total, really has no teeth. Instead, PRSA should have blasted away at McClellan — for being dishonest and for representing every negative stereotype of public relations professionals. I recognize that professional organizations don’t like to take positions that offend any of its members. And I’m sure that among the ranks of PRSA members there are some who still support the Bush administration. Still, when it comes to our bedrock principles — truth, honesty and acting in the public interest — couldn’t we have come up with something with a little more bite?

And consider this — because it is the issue raised last week by Gary Weiss and still being discussed in detail by Roy Peter Clark and others on Poynter.org. If McClellan were a member of PRSA, would Jeffrey Julin and others now seek sanctions against him for violating the organizaton’s Code of Ethics? Or toss him out of the organization?

Those really are the questions that PRSA should have answered. And the response would say volumes about how public relations professionals really feel about ethics and professionalism.

Rachael Ray: Terrorist?

This is a great country. In the span of about 24 hours I’ve had the opportunity to write about the nadir of ethics (Scott McClellan) and the pinnacle of political correctness (Dunkin’ Donuts). And I don’t believe Rachael Ray is a terrorist. There. I’ve said it. Scott McClellan: If you know something I don’t about this Rachael Ray debacle — speak up now.

Anyway, here’s the story. Rachael Ray has been doing a series of ads for Dunkin’ Donuts. In the latest one, she was wearing a black-and-white scarf. The problem? Conservative Fox News talking head Michelle Malkin, and others, opined that the scarf looked like a keffiyeh, described in a Boston.com article, “Dunkin’ Donuts yanks Rachael Ray ad,” as a traditional headdress worn by Arab men.

Here’s from the article:

Some observers, including ultra-conservative Fox News commentator Michelle Malkin, were so incensed by the ad that there was even talk of a Dunkin’ Donuts boycott.

‘‘The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad,’’ Malkin yowls in her syndicated column.

‘‘Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant and not-so-ignorant fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.’’

The company at first pooh-poohed the complaints, claiming the black-and-white wrap was not a keffiyeh. But the right-wing drumbeat on the blogosphere continued and by yesterday, Dunkin’ Donuts decided it’d be easier just to yank the ad.

Oh, mama. I wonder what Starbucks would have done?

Adrants puts this fiasco into historical context. Yet it troubles me that Dunkin’ Donuts would cave on this — especially at a time when it appears that we can’t get any honest answers from our own government about the “war on terrorism.” And when companies are lined up to sponsor the Summer Olympics in a country that should raise some concerns beyond who is wearing a black-and-white scarf.

Well, I guess what I am saying is that I would stand next to Rachael Ray on this one even if she were wearing nothing. Ah, that didn’t come out exactly right. But you get the point.

And then there is Scott McClellan. Plenty of articles to read today if you are interested in him and his book. But here’s the lead from a story that was on the front page of the Akron Beacon Journal this morning:

From Beacon Journal wire services
WASHINGTON: In a White House full of Bush loyalists, none was more loyal than Scott McClellan, the bland press secretary who spread the company line for all the government to follow each day. His word, it turns out, was worthless, his confessional memoir a glimpse into Washington’s world of spin and even outright deception.

Gee, wonder what Michele Malkin and her counterparts believe is the bigger threat to our country and democracy. A White House press secretary who can’t tell the truth — or a celebrity who is wearing a scarf in a Dunkin’ Donuts ad?

WTF

Scott McClellan, ethics and public relations

It appears that former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan wants to tell the truth. Finally. Here’s my reaction: What took you so long? I guess that another thought that comes to mind is douche bag. But I digress.

McClellan has written a book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.” Michael D. Shear, writing in The Washington Post this morning (”Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled U.S. on Iraq“):

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated “political propaganda campaign” led by President Bush and aimed at “manipulating sources of public opinion” and “downplaying the major reason for going to war.”

McClellan includes the charges in a 341-page book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception,” that delivers a harsh look at the White House and the man he served for close to a decade. He describes Bush as demonstrating a “lack of inquisitiveness,” says the White House operated in “permanent campaign” mode, and admits to having been deceived by some in the president’s inner circle about the leak of a CIA operative’s name.

OK. Ho-hum. Is there a thinking person anywhere in the world that doesn’t believe this to be true — and who hasn’t come to the same conclusion months maybe years before now? (And if you are interested in more detail about McClellan and his book, which apparently goes on sale next week, here’s an article by Mike Allen on Politico.com, “Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House.”

The question is where was McClellan when all this was taking place? When he was getting paid as the public voice/face of the administration? I expect that being White House press secretary is one of the most difficult jobs in the world. Every comment counts. Small mistakes matter. You are expected to be knowledgeable on a host of very complex domestic and international issues. And in theory at least you are dealing daily with some of the best and most experienced reporters in the world. I wouldn’t want the job. And I doubt that I could do it.

Yet McClellan wanted it. Doesn’t that job come with some obligation to tell the truth? To serve the American people as well as the administration? And if so, why didn’t he say or do something when events were unfolding — not years later after the damage has been done? I don’t know. He’s not alone in this. And it’s unfair to focus on Scott McClellan given the administration’s record for openness and honestly in total.

Yet we talk about truth, ethics and professionalism a lot in public relations. Wouldn’t it be great for the public to see some examples of these principles in action in a venue where they really should matter?

Instead, here is the view that many see — and I believe it helps shape an overall negative opinion of public relations and public relations professions. It’s a clip from the Imus in the Morning program.

Anyway, I expect that McClellan will be a guest now on all the talk shows promoting the book. Since I know the talking head hosts are busy these days, here two questions I would ask the former press secretary.

If you knew all this at the time, why didn’t you say something publicly? Or resign?

Gee, then we might have had some open and honest discussions at a time when they actually mattered.

News media: buyouts and reporting

Got back from my morning run a few hours ago. And figured that with nothing more productive to do I might as well catch up on some reading. Glad I did as I found two articles that are particularly revealing about the state of the news media today — and tomorrow.

First is the Media Notes column by Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post this morning, “Post Buyouts Come with an Emotional Cost.“

The Washington Post like many (most?) newspapers are cutting staff these days — and shifting resources from print to online editions. Without question, tough for the people involved, although at The Washington Post softened by voluntary buyouts. Probably not as good for thousands of journalists and related staff at other newspapers.

But here’s the point. We’re seeing a major shift in the newspaper industry. The question is whether in the long run it is going to be positive from the standpoint of those who believe, like me, that a strong, vigorous press still matters in this country. Kurtz writes:

“I know, I know. The future is digital. The Web is a cornucopia of fast-moving video and blogs and bulletins and gossip, while newspapers are old, slow and less than hip. That’s why The Post (and every other paper on the planet) is beefing up its online presence and why I write a daily blog for the Web site.

“But — and stop me if you’ve heard this one — newspapers matter. There isn’t a Web site around that can produce the probing work, such as the exposé of shoddy conditions at the Army’s Walter Reed Medical Center, that won The Post six Pulitzer Prizes this year. The economics of the Web, for now, won’t support a staff that can hold public officials accountable across the region and still cover every Nationals game. So I cling to an old-fashioned, almost mystical belief in the power of ink on paper.”

As I mentioned in this blog many times, young people no longer read newspapers. From my experience with them in the classroom, they are informed and interested in events. But they get their news from other sources. In the column, Kurtz writes:

“In one sense, the Web is a blessing. Daily circulation for the newsprint Post, now 673,000, may be down from 813,000 in 2000, but we are drawing an eye-opening 9.4 million unique visitors online each month, 85 percent of them from outside the D.C. circulation area. Those readers don’t bring in the cash that print subscribers do — given the gotta-be-free mentality of the Web — but they do expand our reach.”

But with the Web comes a different style of reporting — and the ability for even obscure stories to gain major significance and readers. That’s the point in the second article — in Politico, “Media Hype: How small stories become big news,” by John F. Harris. Wish I would have had the opportunity to use this one in my ethics class.

Anyway, it focuses on the current flap involving Hillary Clinton and the remark in an interview that she made about Robert F. Kennedy. Harris writes:

“This weekend’s uproar over Hillary Rodham Clinton invoking the assassination of Robert Kennedy as rationale for continuing her presidential campaign is an especially vivid example of modern journalism as hyperkinetic child — overstimulated by speed and hunger for a head-turning angle that will draw an audience.

“The truth about what Clinton said — and any fair-minded appraisal of what she meant — was entirely beside the point.

“Her comment was news by any standard. But it was only big news when wrested from context and set aflame by a news media more concerned with being interesting and provocative than with being relevant or serious. Thus, the story made the front page of The New York Times, was the lead story of The Washington Post and got prominent treatment on the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC.”

Ouch. But accurate. And I’m not making an excuse for Clinton or her remarks. The same thing happened to Obama a few weeks ago when a blogger posted his comments about the “bitter” middle class. Were/are either — or both? — campaign-defining statements at this point?

Yet from Harris, here’s the point:

“Once, the elite papers and network news set the agenda, and others followed suit, following up on what these establishment pillars deemed important.

“Now it’s just the opposite. The conservative old voices increasingly take their cues from the newer, more daring ones.”

Maybe in the long run that will be better. More voices. More openness. But something tells me that Kurtz has a point. You don’t lose a 100 staffers at a newspaper like The Washington Post without it making a difference.

Oh by the way. This shift in news coverage has some major implications for those of us in public relations. Think about it. The era of the “one-day” story is over. And today even a so-called minor story about your organization can lead to major coverage and discussion. Are we ready to deal with a Clinton/Obama-type story? Oh, my.