Top Story

Young Journalists Use Facebook Ads to Reach Prospective Employers

1.	AP stories are back on Google News again 7:21 PM Feb. 9, 2010
2.	Foursquare partners with New York Times for Olympics 4:39 PM Feb. 9, 2010
3.	Glitches, Delays Disrupt Plans for Virtual Border Fence 11:33 AM Feb. 9, 2010
4.	Young Journalists Use Facebook Ads to Reach Prospective Employers 5:20 AM Feb. 9, 2010
5.	What Great Bosses Know about 'No Surprises' 4:20 PM Feb. 8, 2010
More Recent Articles

Most E-mailed

Article Feedback

View all Romenesko feedback

Sending letters, memos or links to Romenesko
(Read the Article)
Post Feedback | Feedback Guidelines | Report Feedback Abuse

Sorting options:	most recent	\| author
Display options:	expand all	\| collapse all

Page 6 of 7 [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 ]

Covering Iraq
Posted by J. Peder Zane 6/1/2006 10:54:26 AM

Re: Brian Montopli's artcile about Laura Ingraham's criticism of Iraq war coverage.

Seems to me that this entire issue can be cleared up through a little � reporting. Why not have a reporter spend time with the correspondents, see where they go and what they do, look over their schedules for the past few months, have them explain the challenges of reporting from Iraq, why they choose to do some stories and not others.

J. Peder Zane
Book Review Editor
The News & Observer of Raleigh

We're not sheep
Posted by R Shaw 5/30/2006 8:13:38 PM

Regarding "Rutten: Why US news orgs failed badly on the Enron story"

Oh, please. The stereotype of Wall Streeters by "news orgs" is of smart, mean & cruel wolves. But with Enron, the wolves were really sheep and got took.

Hardly -- plenty of 'shorts' were short on Enron. I was short on Enron. If someone wants to be a sap and lose money, that's their business -- not mine. I don't asked to be bailed out -- and I'm not going to bail out anyone. If you're that naive, buy Savings Bonds.

And if the point is, "Bush is an idiot/Hitler/impeachable -- lead with that. Or how Wm. F. Buckley is against Iraq involvement. Not freakin' Enron.

Overreaction in Richmond
Posted by Carol Johnson 5/30/2006 2:41:57 PM

In regards to the story about Richmond reporter's dismissal:
Journalists need to take a collective breath. What Bradley did was wrong, but nowhere on a scale worth a dismissal and a page one correction that failed to put the issue in perspective. The original story was way inside the paper and was about 10 grafs long. The offending material was in about the eighth graf, and nothing in the story hung on it. What Bradley did was imply that he had been someplace he had been before and talk to someone he had talked to previously about the same subject. Wrong, yes, but a capital offense, no. It called for a regular inside correction and a reprimand, possibly a suspension while an audit was done. Instead, the paper overreacted with a page one reader's note that failed to include the above details. By putting the note on the cover, the paper created a scandal where there was none. It may make the editors feel on par with the New York Times, but it shows them to be mean-spirited and hysterical. I hope when and if an audit shows, as I suspect, that this was an aberration in Bradley's career, the editor will see fit to put that on the front page as well.

Inky dinky
Posted by Jody Kolodzey 5/26/2006 12:05:56 PM

New owners Brian Tierney et al have promised they will keep their "hands off" the news operation, and I hope they do. The problem as I see it, however, is
that the Inquirer actually needs someone to redirect its news coverage -- the paper has been too focused on the suburbs, with scores of zoned editions that are as pointless and shallow as they are expensive to produce -- in order to make it a respected news outlet again,
from which it will follow that it is a more lucrative one. When I worked there in the mid-1990's, the Inquirer had five reporters covering television and nobody on the labor beat. The paper didn't cover Philadelphia City Hall with any depth -- if you even wanted to know what happened in City Council that day you had to check the Daily News (maybe), KYW news radio (again, maybe) or go directly to the municipal PR office for the official version -- but you could always get suburban school lunch menus. As for foreign coverage, I'm still shocked that we squandered David Rohde on a suburban beat and then let him get away.

Uncomfortable thought
Posted by Eugene Cassidy 5/22/2006 11:51:06 AM

Regarding David Carr's 5/22 NYT column on The Inquirer's uncertain future, it strikes me that newspapers are info delivery systems within which the excellence of particular reports or the numbers of prestigious prizes are tape measures applied to sprawling enterprises that must be measured in multiple dimensions. As long as journalists limit themselves or accept the limiation of being experts at only one particular aspect of delivering news to an audience, the money people will continue to lead news in the direction that suits them, whether or not it suits a populace's craving for a healthy information flow. We have to get way out of our comfort zones and ahead of the print arbitrageurs or as Carr says, we won't outrun the boulder.

Equal credence
Posted by Steve Sebelius 5/16/2006 5:43:00 PM

Billie Stanton says her journalism profs at the University of Arizona 30 years ago were relentless about balance and objectivity. "Every angle must be covered, and if you had any bias, it better not show," she writes. "This credo served me well for many years. When some talented Denver Post reporters covered an anti-gay referendum later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, their bias showed. Repeatedly I demanded rewrites to give the homophobes' side equal credence."

Forgive me the impertient question: Why?

Objectivity � never a great idea in journalism in the first place � posits that we shouldn't make value judgments as to the people involved in the story or their views. But I think we can, and should. It may not be universally accepted, but homophobes' views are NOT equally as legitimate as the views of those who preach tolerance, just as segregationist views are not equally as legitimate as those who preach racial harmony.

The problem in our profession is we've been taught to give equal weight to all views; I don't think that's such a great idea. If we're to provide leadership at all, we need to take stands. We need to shine a light on stories that says "this is wrong" or "this is right" and back up what we say with solid reporting and insightful analysis. It's easy for me to say; I work at an alternative weekly where opinion and journalism are shacked up. It's harder at a daily paper. But, bias be damned, we shouldn't commit the error in thinking that "objectivity" requires us to surrender our humanity at the door.

What I'm trying to say is, a strong sense of morality is not an impediment to good journalism; in fact, it's a road map to it.

Latest from Capitol Hill / Cameras in Congress
Posted by Max Cacas 5/16/2006 12:59:29 PM

Dear RTCA members:

As you know the RTCA Executive Committee has been involved in a 5-month campaign to gain greater access for TV cameras on Capitol Hill. Many of you, in fact, wrote letters supporting our efforts. Thank you for that. It was having the desired effect because we were just about to return to the negotiating table with key officials.

On 5/9 however, our campaign hit a little snag when CNN Reporter Joe Johns used images from a small hand-held digital camera to supplement stakeout camera footage from the Ohio Clock corridor for a story involving Senator Ted Stevens. Joe was not fully aware that we were involved in delicate negotiations - and our Executive Committee was not aware that Joe intended to take this action. The timing could not have been worse.

Senator Stevens filed a formal complaint, which the Executive Committee investigated and considered in more than three hours of debate and deliberations. In the end, we took no formal action against Joe - but we are urging Joe and CNN in rather strong terms to refrain from using small hand-held cameras on Capitol Hill while we were involved in good-faith discussions with Hill leaders.

Today, I am writing to make the same request of you. After this notice goes out, the RTCA Executive Committee will take a very dim view of news organizations using such technology anywhere on Capitol Hill while we are in the midst of potentially fruitful discussions. Please work with us on this.

We collectively believe that current TV coverage rules are archaic, fuzzy and open to differing interpretations. We still strongly believe that the playing field is not level for TV journalists trying to report on Capitol Hill. It is our hope that we can resume fruitful discussions once the dust has settled.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Rest assured we are still working hard to gain greater access for TV cameras.

Brian Wilson, Fox news / chair,RTCA

NSA Snooping
Posted by Jenny Hontz 5/15/2006 6:25:31 PM

Does anyone have any advice on avoiding NSA snooping? I'm self-employed and dumping Verizon. Are Internet phone services such as Sunrocket any more or less secure? I know they aren't regulated by the same laws as traditional phone companies. Are the protections weaker? Does anyone know of local providers other than Qwest that are not cooperating with the NSA? What about wireless services?

Wasserman's right about the potential problems of convergence, but wrong about its solution
Posted by Kim Pearson 5/15/2006 3:16:27 PM

Edward Wasserstein rightly notes that practicing newsroom convergence in a way that sacrifices storytelling and depth for speed promises to degrade the quality of journalism and further compromise the credibility of journalists. However, I would submit that journalists who are properly trained in the use of multimedia tools can produce rich, powerful and engaging news and feature stories. The problem is that we are just at the beginning of the learning curve when it comes to multimedia storytelling. Judging the potential of newsroom convergence by the early examples in existence is a bit like judging the potential of television news by only looking at the first few years of news broadcasting.

Additional Context - CNN's Joe Johns & U.S. Senate coverage
Posted by Max Cacas 5/12/2006 4:28:11 PM

Colleagues... At the request of Bill Mitchell, I will try to condense down the posts I sent earlier. I'm trying to offer a little more context to the dispute pitting CNN Capitol Hill reporter Joe Johns and Sen. Ted Stevens,. The "Raw Story" article is a really hacked up version of the more complete Roll Call story.

Our request for the right to set up a stakeout in the all-important Ohio Clock corridor -- without advance permission of the leadership -- mirrors a long-standing agreement with House leaders governing the Will Rogers stakeout position. It would even the playing field for TV reporters, who need sound and images to tell their stories. If approved, we would have almost the same level of access now enjoyed by print, radio and our friends the still photographers. It is important to note that the other media galleries are on record in support of our modest request.

On Friday, The Wall Street Journal made mention of our campaign in its Washington Wire column. There was also extensive coverage of this matter on the widely-read TVNewser.com (to read; cut and paste the following address in your web browser.)

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/television_journalists_request_more_access_to_capitol_hill_corridors_36468.asp#more

By now, many of you have seen the detailed article in Roll Call. This article was also discussed before a nationwide audience on CSPAN.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/51_118/vested/13198-1.html

What can you do?

Take a moment now to write to the following people. Let them know that you believe the First Amendment is more important than protecting the status quo.

Eric_Euland@frist.senate.gov; Amy_Call@frist.senate.gov; Susan_McCue@reid.senate.gov; Jim_Manley@reid.senate.gov; Susan_Wells@rules.senate.gov; Bill_Pickle@saa.senate.gov

(on behalf of) Brian Wilson/ Fox News, RTCA Chairman

- Max Cacas, reporter, Capitol News Connection / member, Congressional RTCA

Time Magazine
Posted by Mort Young 5/10/2006 5:32:05 PM

Maybe I'm just grouch, but I can't read Time mag. It's like chewing cardboard. The writing is plodding, trite, and instead of saying boring, let me say that the 100 people idolized in the last issue would have put me to sleep if I hadn't been laughing so hard at the inanity of the piece.
Whoever had the idea...never mind.
-- Mort Young

The up (and down) -market Globe
Posted by Tom Grubisich 5/10/2006 5:18:48 PM

If I read Christopher Lydon correctly, the Boston Globe can't win for losing. First, in the Tom Winship era, it went too upmarket, primarily with its busing coverage (which alienated South Boston and other working-class neighborhoods). Now, in the post-Winship era, according to Lydon, the Globe is going too downmarket by trying to out-Herald the Herald. How odd, though, that a paper with a downmarket strategy would commit to unsparing coverage of the sex-abuse scandal in the Archdiocese of Boston, which, as Lydon acknowledges, was an "epic" that even "Town Crier" Winship might not have undertaken. It seems the only thing the Globe might do that's right is adopt the "moronic" strategy of the Metro, which Lydon says is now the paper of choice for commuters on the MBTA.

The up (and down) -market Globe
Posted by Tom Grubisich 5/10/2006 5:17:38 PM

If I read Christopher Lyndon correctly, the Boston Globe can't win for losing. First, in the Tom Winship era, it went too upmarket, primarily with its busing coverage (which alienated South Boston and other working-class neighborhoods). Now, in the post-Winship era, according to Lydon, the Globe is going too downmarket by trying to out-Herald the Herald. How odd, though, that a paper with a downmarket strategy would commit to unsparing coverage of the sex-abuse scandal in the Archdiocese of Boston, which, as Lydon acknowledges, was an "epic" that even "Town Crier" Winship might not have undertaken. It seems the only thing the Globe might do that's right is adopt the "moronic" strategy of the Metro, which Lydon says is now the paper of choice for commuters on the MBTA.

Why all the negative Colbert links?
Posted by Paul Guinnessy 5/8/2006 12:13:55 PM

I've noticed that nearly all your clippings in the last week have said nothing good about Colbert's presentation at the Washington Correspondent's Dinner. Is that because you can't find anything positive or because you didn't find it funny?

I only ask as the coverage in your clippings list seems a bit one sided compared to the clippings I'm getting from elsewhere (for example you used one from the Huffington Post that was negative, but there were five other editorials on the same site that were positive.

There's quite a nice summary at wikipedia at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents%27_Association_Dinner

Re Plagiarism/Edelstein
Posted by Mark Pinsky 5/8/2006 11:51:29 AM

If memory serves, wasn't it Oscar Levant who quipped that imitation is the sincerest form of plagiarism? Mark Pinsky/Orlando Sentinel

Purcell's suburban sale
Posted by Amanda Mantone 5/6/2006 12:51:15 AM

Just wanted to thank Romenesko for alerting all of Pat Purcell's employees about a deal that affects our jobs before we were notified (I'm still waiting).

Re: Jeff Kagan
Posted by Eric Fettmann 5/3/2006 5:14:36 PM

M. Stein would have done better to actually read Tim Arango's piece before posting his unfounded comment.

Contrary to what he writes, the article quite clearly notes that "The [New York] Post has similarly quoted Kagan as an independent analyst, most recently last December."

The link, for those who -- unlike Stein -- want to check for themselves is:

http://www.nypost.com/business/67923.htm

Eric Fettmann

Jeff Kagan
Posted by M. Stein 5/3/2006 12:27:41 PM

Interesting that when the New York Post wrote about Jeff Kagan's financial ties to some of the companies he opines on, it neglected to mention that among the news media outlets that have quoted Mr. Kagan (and almost always referred to him as an "independent" analyst) was ... the New York Post.

Colbert was dead-on
Posted by Jerry lanson 5/2/2006 10:23:28 PM

It is pathetic to read all the shocked journos trashing Stephen Colbert's appearance at the White House dinner. It's pathetic because Colbert said what all the glitzy Washington journalists are afraid to say: the truth. His was a perfect parody of this White House in action and this press corps in inaction. I suspect he got trashed because he got too close to the bone. Light comedy it wasn't. Revealing comedy it was.

Jerry Lanson

Your congress members dirty little secret about immigration
Posted by Kenneth Lamb 4/25/2006 2:10:53 PM

On April 23, 2006, the Pensacola (FL) News Journal published the opinion column "Bay Area immigrants mirror us." It addresses the hypocrisy of anti-immigrant forces within the universe of Pensacola�s experience following Ivan, and the anti-brown fever now gripping Pensacola, and the nation.

While that example of community hypocrisy is worthy of note, more directly relevant to you will be the concise history of Congressional immigration legislation that comprises the second half of the column.

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060423/OPINION/604230304/1023/OPINION02

The unedited version of the column, originally entitled, "They want to be Americans - they are just like us," is posted at �Reading Between the Lines.�

http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/

Depending on when you read this, if the title above does not show on the list of columns, please refer to the April 2006 archives link to retrieve the column.

Complete list of blogs published by Kenneth E. Lamb:

http://www.blogger.com/profile/14444338

Thank you. I hope the information proves useful to you.

Kenneth E. Lamb

Then take NYTimes private
Posted by R Shaw 4/24/2006 9:58:52 PM

Regarding this ...

"From CHRIS DALY, journalism professor, Boston University: Concerning the recent stories about the threats by Morgan Stanley .."

Sir, get a grip. For the record -- The NYTimes Co. is a publicly-held company, with legally-required expectations that it will maximize the investments made in public markets. Any failure to do so, would be a violation of federal securities law. Ever heard of ENRON?

If you do not think NYTimes company should be in public markets -- convince the family owners to take the company private. Then they can do anything they want, including any fantasy they wish to engage in, like ignoring basic laws of investing (e.g., tolerating a below-market return on investment).

Wishing for a more-perfect world does not make for a more-perfect world. Actions always speak louder than words.

Behind Harper's Folly-Farber, Hodge and the Denialist Deception
Posted by Gregg Gonsalves 4/19/2006 12:52:09 PM

Behind Harper�s Folly: Farber, Hodge and the Denialist Deception

By John Moore, Ph.D., and Jeanne Bergman, Ph.D.

March 2006

Celia Farber: An AIDS Denialist Masquerading as a Journalist
Celia Farber, the author of the March 2006 Harper�s Magazine article attacking HIV clinical research, misrepresents herself to the popular media as a legitimate journalist and science writer, interested only in doggedly covering a good story. She is in fact an AIDS �dissident� who has been publicizing and extolling the claims of AIDS denialists and attacking scientific research on HIV/AIDS since the late 1980s.

Farber has signed the two defining petitions of HIV denialism, she co-authored with members of the denialist group HEAL a core tract of the denialist movement called "HIV: Against Science," she described herself in the subtitle of one of her articles �an AIDS Dissident� and she is a prominent member of the denialist �Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis.� Her denialism is well documented, but she conceals her beliefs in order to fool the mainstream media into allowing her to promote them in print.

Farber�s main contribution to the AIDS denialist movement is to broadcast their views to the general public in the disguise of objective journalism. In her writing for the popular press, she has consistently and deceptively refused to fully disclose her deep involvement with, and her role as a spokesperson for, the denialist camp. She has also evaded explaining clearly her own understanding or beliefs about HIV and AIDS. Instead, she allows other denialists to make the case for her in extended, laudatory quotes, while maintaining the pretense that she is just an objective reporter asking honest questions, and one who is unfairly abused for her honesty:

All I ever did was follow and report, with what some may consider excessive attention, the vital debate about whether HIV is the cause of AIDS. And whether AZT is a viable therapy

Ethics and Book Deals
Posted by Carole Simmons 4/16/2006 3:02:31 PM

I'm very curious as to how other journalists feel about San Francisco Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams continuing to report on Barry Bonds and whether or not he used steroids while they are promoting their book on the same subject.
I see it as a huge conflict of interest and a breach of journalistic ethics given that they now have a vested interest in the story -- selling their book. Would they be allowed to continue to report on a company for which they held a substantial share of stock? Could a reporter cover county government if their spouses were on the county commission?
And for the sake of the conversation, I am a newspaper editor; I don't follow baseball; and before this, I couldn't pick Barry Bonds out of a two-person line-up, most days I still can't. But I do think that as journalists, we have to watch where we put our feet.

Wash post Op-ed about Hispanics and media
Posted by John Martin 4/9/2006 6:35:02 PM

Jim,
Check out this op-ed by former newspaper journalist Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez in today's Washington Post.
She talks about the media's confusion between the terms Latinos and immigrants.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/07/AR2006040701974.html

Jefferson said what?
Posted by Patrick Butler 4/4/2006 5:44:36 PM

To Jim Romanesko: Did you notice in your lead item (from the column written by Geoghegan and Warren), that the writers got the famous Jefferson quote wrong? I quote:

Jefferson opined, "If I had to choose between newspapers without government and government without newspapers, I'd choose the latter."

Doesn't exactly make the argument for why newspapers are so important!

Page 6 of 7 [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 ]

View all Romenesko feedback

See All Jobs

Add Your Resume

Post Your Job

Become a Member

More media jobs

Article Feedback

Latest Poynter Blogs (See All Blogs)