Top Story

Public TV, Radio Stations to Increase Local Investigative Coverage

1.	Poynter announces publication of a new collection of newspaper pages 9:00 AM Nov. 21, 2009
2.	Poynter's Times Publishing Co. sells Governing 5:15 PM Nov. 20, 2009
3.	Recommendation for Fewer PAP Screens Sure to Set Off Controversy 10:32 AM Nov. 20, 2009
4.	Gene Patterson to Jack Nelson: Save Us a Desk Up There in That Celestial Newsroom 7:03 AM Nov. 20, 2009
5.	Public TV, Radio Stations to Increase Local Investigative Coverage 6:19 AM Nov. 20, 2009
More Recent Articles

Most E-mailed

Poynter Forums

Letters Sent to Romenesko

E-mail Jim Romenesko at jromenesko@poynter.org

Return to Romenesko

Let me know if you DO NOT want your e-mail address linked with your letter. WARNING: Spammers grab e-mail addresses off this page. Also, CONFIDENTIAL e-mails are welcome. Just put "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" in your subject line.

Use Poynter's search engine to get PERMALINKS for letters.

Page 12 of 50 [ |< << < 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 > >> >| ]

The real NYT Magazine outrage

5/28/2008 2:58:55 PM

From REGINA SCHRAMBLING: I did not wade through the NYT comments on the blogger piece, but I'm surprised no one on Romenesko has responded to the real outrage: Placing the story about the horrifically wounded (really, destroyed) Iraq veteran right after that inane navel gazing was beyond offensive. I literally had to put the magazine down, and I didn't even finish the cover story. The gap between the two was just too much a reflection of American media today. If the contrast was intentional, it backfired. And if it wasn't, someone should have some explaining to do, and not about why you need bare skin on a cover that is never seen on newsstands. That poor mother, her poor son and our poor country! [Permalink]

Comments were more interesting than Gould's story

5/28/2008 12:19:16 PM

From BILL COOKE: I see that the NY media pundits are still dissecting the entrails of Emily Gould's NYT magazine piece. But since 99.99% of what's been written has been from the NYC media establishment I thought I�d offer a perspective from the sticks (South Florida) if anyone cares.

First, here in Miami, no one is talking or writing about the piece. And I mean no one. I did a quick Google news search and that�s apparently the case elsewhere in the country. But, some writers, after a long weekend to ponder how foolish they've been in devoting so much attention to Ms. Gould's piece, are still offering us all the minutiae that's fit to print.

This morning we learned that when Gerry Marzorati received Ms. Gould's piece he thought it was more "thinky" than he could have imagined. We learned that Ms. Gould thought the photos that illustrated her article were "vaguely cheesecakey." "Thinky" and "cheesecakey?" Do they really talk like that in New York?

We also learned that Ms. Gould wore a camisole with no bra for the photo shoot.

By the way, as someone who�s seen a few "cheesecake" photos in his time I can say that the images with the Gould piece are no where close to being in the "cheesecake" genre.

What no one has written about is why Ms. Gould was given so much prime space for a boring piece that essentially said nothing. I, for one, found the 1200 or so reader comments that accompanied the article infinitely more insightful, witty and funny than the piece they were written about. They were certainly more to the point. Perhaps Gerry Marzorati should commission of few of them to write his next cover piece.

For the record, I read a lot of Ms. Gould's piece. But when the lede graph of a NY Times magazine cover story contains the line "I spent most of my free time sitting with Henry in our cheery yellow living room on our stained Ikea couch, watching TV," you know you're in for a rough ride.

A final thought: Perhaps, in the weeks to come, some writer will address the apparent �disconnect� between media decision makers like Mr. Marzorati and readers. In an explanation (starts at bottom of page two and continues on page three) of his decision to publish the Gould piece he says he still thinks "she had something important to say about the way technology -- particularly for young people -- is shifting and blurring the already uneasy border between what is private and public in American life."

Anyone who read the more than 1200 comments left by Times readers knows that most disagree with him, myself included. I would love to see someone address that. [Permalink]

He just hated the editing of Gould's story

5/28/2008 10:56:03 AM

From TREVOR BUTTERWORTH: Perhaps, If I were closer to my twenties than my forties, I would clamor to rank my scorn among the hundreds who have railed online at Emily Gould's virtually-enabled narcissism; but, much to my surprise, I neither hated the story nor the author; I merely hated the way it was edited. A 26-year old is poorly placed to reflect on what it meant to be 25, or even 24; and yet, as Gould's life is one largely refracted through concepts and not the kind of old-fashioned tactile adventures that can carry the reader forward through mere excitement, her story's narrative drama demands, at the very least, psychological acuity, if not intellectual brio. The reader got neither: Gould closes down and moves on whenever the possibility of something truly revelatory about her behavior or her cultural predicament opens up.

I suppose this is telling in its own way, and it may well suggest that Gould would have been better served in her life and in her writing by seeing an actual therapist instead of a New York Times magazine editor (although, at $2 dollars a word, she can reflect all the way to the bank - or the Bahamas); but if the premature memoir is to have any point for the reader, then the editor should have stepped in and played that role. And if the Times editors had forced Gould to confront the hard questions her material raised, and created distance and depth by interrogation, I believe "Blog Post Confidential" could have been something substantial, revelatory and intellectually provocative. As it stands, it's more blog post than journalism. But whose fault is that? [Permalink]

Old, stodgy -- and wrong

5/23/2008 4:11:30 PM

From CHOIRE SICHA: In a letter to Romenesko, Alex Dering approvingly quotes a comment on the New York Times website about Emily Gould's New York Times magazine article this weekend: "Obviously, she is a member of an influential family or she is 'dating' someone influential at The Times to have access to so much space for her scribblings."

The comment itself is erroneous ("Obviously") and ill-constructed, and
even more than just being stupid, it is actually quite crude, as it puts the word "dating" is scare-quotes. (Clearly, its writer believes Ms. Gould must be some sort of whore to have had this piece published.) Mr. Dering presumably approves of this sort of lousy thinking and ad hominem, though why he would be, what benefit accrues to him, is hard to imagine. Since he proposes a piece of his own in response, his envy at least seems obvious.

In any event, if he is actually ignorant of how essays are commissioned by the magazines of our time, perhaps, since he is so "old and stodgy," he could do some good old-fashioned reporting on the practice. I look forward to his conclusions, but only if they are better reasoned and less ugly than this letter of his.

Best regards,

Choire Sicha
New York City
(Disclosure: I was Ms. Gould's editor at Gawker.)

[Permalink]

How did *that* get into the New York Times?

5/23/2008 3:22:13 PM

From ALEX DERING: Today, I spotted this at the New York Times website. Let me set aside the "argument" of how relevant and topical and so forth blogging is. Let me set aside the "new paradigm" of self-reflection. Let me set aside that this piece went to 10 pages on the website. Let me set aside my opinion (old and stodgy) that this was something that should have been thrown out as soon as it reached an editor.

Let me ask the question raised in Comment 827 associated with this piece. In that comment (all the way from France!) is the big detail I'd like an answer to: "Obviously, she is a member of an influential family or she is 'dating' someone influential at The Times to have access to so much space for her scribblings."

Well? Could I please get an explanation of how someone can write something as long, tedious and pointless as this disaster that Gould produced and get it into the New York Times? Who does she know?

By the way, I excel at long, tedious and pointless. If the Times is willing to pay for it, I can produce an equally vapid self-assassination piece. I can even go longer than 10 pages if you'd like.

Sincerely and sincerely desiring an answer,

Alex Dering
Princeton, NJ
[Permalink]

Woodward still doesn't get it

5/23/2008 12:19:43 PM

From CRAIG PYES: So is Bob Woodward saying his lack of pre-war reporting on Iraq's WMD (or lack thereof) was based on his sources' beliefs rather the on evaluating the evidence for the casus belli? Strikes me more as a mindset for the religion beat than for investigative reporting.

His comment diminishing the Knight Ridder effort -- that it was not clear what they had -- indicates he still doesn't get it. It was not clear what Iraq had -- and that's what Knight Ridder's dogged reporting showed. Exercising that extra measure of caution is not only axiomatic in the discipline; it is a moral imperative when a government is fanning the flames of war. [Permalink]

About that bias problem...

5/22/2008 4:40:28 PM

From DAN MITCHELL: While the bottom continues to fall out from under local and regional newspapers, it's good to know that at least one paper is finally doing something about it. As readers flee to alternative sources of information, or to no information at all, because newspapers haven't been able to deliver much that readers find useful or compelling, the Record of Hackensack has identified the core of the problem, and is addressing it head on, with great courage and wisdom.

What newspapers need to make them more useful and compelling, according to the Record's obviously airtight and unassailable marketing survey, is to get rid of their "liberal bias." And rather than waste a lot of time hiring crackerjack reporters and editors and setting them loose on the community to tell stories that the people of Hackensack could not possibly ignore, the Record is hauling editors into meetings with the marketing staff, where they will be schooled in the art of wringing every last bit of potentially controversial substance from their stories. I'm sorry, I mean from their "product." And we all know -- from those same kinds of marketing surveys -- that if you offer news stories that don't make anyone angry, readers will start beating down the newsroom doors for more. They just can't get enough watered-down mush. The survey said so!

Similar surveys also tell us that people want better schools, and that they don't want to pay for them through higher taxes. Those might sound like contradictory notions, but they are nonetheless true. You might not like it, but "the research is sound." Don't you dare argue! And if you write a news story about schools and taxes, don't mention anything about how quality costs money. That's "biased," you filthy liberal!

As far as the imperiled future of newspapers, I'm not sure what the big mystery is. The answers are all right there in the Record's memo. The problems have nothing to do with the cluelessness on the part of newspaper executives when they had the chance to own the online-
classifieds market, and blew it. Or when they had the chance to make
their Web sites clean, uncluttered, and user-friendly, and blew it. Or when they decided that forcing readers to register to read their Web sites was a great idea. Or when they reacted to declining circulation by laying off journalists (that was, and is, pure genius!). Or when they decided to downsize and hide their business sections (because what business would want to advertise in a business section, right?).

No, the problem is that the ideas from the editorial pages are "sneaking over" into the news pages. Well, duh! Despite the best efforts of newspaper executives over the past few decades to homogenize their storytelling, to hesitate before publishing anything even remotely controversial, to always make sure that every story had two "sides" equally represented, and to rein in their most dogged reporters, many journalists have insisted on trying to be the maverick by writing challenging, courageous stories with solid reporting and an avoidance of dullness. And if it weren't for people like market research manager Joe Ferrara, they'd still be doing it. And then where would we be?

Any "content improvement project" worth its salt will file off the last sharp bits of personality or point of view from every story. Such a project, done right, will make all news stories read like wire-service dispatches, which readers *love.* That's why they say so in marketing surveys! [Permalink]

Greg Mitchell fires back -- again

5/17/2008 10:20:35 AM

From GREG MITCHELL: Subject -- Response to Glaser's response. Maybe Mark was too busy a-twittering to get the quote down accurately. I would never say that E&P was the first site to ever link to blogs. What I did say was that we were ONE of the first MSM sites to REGULARLY link to POLITICAL blogs. Some significant qualifiers there.

Since Mark has already noted that a lot of people did not show up to collect their awards, he can hardly now claim that our hall of 350 was made up mainly of those who came to get the hardware. By my count that would add up to 25 out of 350.

I'm curious who he is referring to when he mentions "Mitchell and other
EPers." The only other "EPer" who directed a panel was our Jennifer
Saba. Please Mark, find someone who thought that panel was a waste of their time.

Elsewhere: Mark, are you really saying that bloggers are not "somehow apart from the MSM"? Of course, some are more MSM than others, but to be criticized for making a distinction -- which many bloggers, of course, insist on -- is bizarre. Since I am a daily contributor to two of the leading blogs in the universe (besides having my own) it's interesting that he would paint me as out to lunch on the blog front.

One final point: In case Mark does not know, both E&P and Mediaweek are TRADE publications. Of course, many in our reading audience -- and at our conference -- come to it from a business perspective. Hence, the panels related to Web advertising and so forth. I would imagine that some in attendance would find those sessions quite boring and unnecessary. For others, in our crowd, it is priority one. [Permalink]

Glaser: Conference needs to change

5/16/2008 6:36:01 PM

From MARK GLASER, PBS MediaShift: E&P's Greg Mitchell, not surprisingly, disagrees with my sentiments about the conference. He says that the room was packed with 250 people the second morning (I'm guessing to see Huffington) and with 350 for the awards luncheon (I'm guessing to get their awards). I'm curious to hear how the conference has grown in the past three years -- what were those numbers? It was a pretty sparse, low-energy audience at the conference's start.

Now, I do agree that some of the issues covered and the people who attended had forward-thinking ideas, and I mentioned how the Knight grantees definitely helped out. But my criticism was more in how Mitchell and the other E&Pers poorly framed the discussion, often showing a lack of knowledge about new media trends and using an old language about bloggers being somehow apart from the MSM. Yes, I was there for the politics panel, and Twittered it, and quoted Mitchell saying statements like, "E&P was the first publication to link to blogs." Huh? How can you even back up that statement?

I wasn't alone in finding the panels to be either too basic or off-putting. Many Knight grantees complained to me privately that they would have preferred the unconference, collaborative style instead of the podium panels. And others thought the breakout sessions, such as the one about social networking, weren't worth the time.

I'm sorry that these people didn't fill out the feedback forms voicing their complaints. Consider my blog post as a big public feedback form, speaking for some of the attendees. I only criticize if I think it will help bring about change, and I think this gathering is in need of big change. [Permalink]

E&P editor responds to Glaser

5/16/2008 4:00:24 PM

From GREG MITCHELL, editor, Editor & Publisher: Mark Glaser is entitled to his opinion about our recently concluded Interactive show in Las Vegas, and some may even be valid (and yeah, the "Chariots of Fire" music was unfortunate), but in reading it I had to wonder if he was at the same conference. Of course, I am biased, but to mention just a few unfair or factually wrong statements:

* There were far more than 100 in the crowd when it kicked off on Wednesday morning and he failed to mention (why?) that the room was packed with 250 the following morning and 350 at our luncheon -- all gains from last year, not a "reduced audience size."

* I know something about that political campaign panel, since I hosted it, and his description bears no resemblance to what was presented -- in fact, all three of the "mainstream" people talked about their video and blog-like work and the entire panel, including the Daily Kos editor, frequently referred to what they had in common and where they differed, with a full discussion on different standards for "comments." That was the whole point.

* I object heartily to the suggestion that this was an old-timey affair. In fact, the majority of the panels covered very topical and forward-looking issues such as mobile, the next wave of video, a tremendously important debate on Web traffic measurement, the next steps in social networking, "are we being bold enough?" and so forth. All of the panels that I saw, with the exception of a couple of breakouts, produced a great amount of participation from the not-so-dead audience.

* The Knight Foundation has many options on where to present their News Challenge winners and has chosen to do it via our conference the past two years. Enough said, except to add that anyone who attended the Knight presentation, their separate session -- with 16 winners from all over the world all in attendance -- and the opportunity for private chats with the winners ought to have come away inspired, not lamenting the "old-school" nature of the gathering. This is far from Mark's mention of it as merely a positive "nugget."

* Mark may have detected a "dead feeling" but we got an overwhelmingly positive response to the content at the conference both in private conversations (which can be a lot of bull) and our private evaluation forms (which are always frank). We had our highest rate ever of people saying they would return next year and recommend it to others. Of course, we will work to improve and build audience -- the latter, no easy trick in a period of budget-slashing. The fact that our conference has actually grown over the past three years means something. [Permalink]

Questions for Boston Herald

5/15/2008 12:13:58 PM

From STEPHEN D. BURGARD, director, Northeastern University School of Journalism: While we wait for the Boston Herald's John Tomase to give his anticipated version of the reporting in the erroneous pre-Super Bowl video taping story, I wonder:

1) Why didn't the paper explain more fully in its initial apology what went on here? If the story was wrong, who was the paper protecting by not unmasking its source or sources? We are supposed to hear from Tomase on Friday, but since when do basic explanations take days to unfurl, and what especially prompts the paper's editor to issue a vote of confidence for his reporter?

2) What was the Herald doing having Tomase write the story in Thursday's paper on Sen. Arlen Specter's continuing interest and persistence in the case? It is one thing for Convey to vouch for him as a reporter, but he should not continue to cover this if the paper is acknowledging a serious error. This story can be read as an attempt to find some mutual redemption for embarrassed parties, not just for Specter, but for Tomase if more can be made of this. [Permalink]

The fountain pen lives

5/12/2008 5:29:12 PM

From JAY GRELEN: Subject -- Tim McGuire on fountain pens.

Dear Mr. McGuire,

From an eternally optimistic newspaper hack in the Amen Corner, a hearty Amen. But you are wrong on one point, which may actually support your optimism in a way you don't realize.

As I write this to you on the keyboard of a slim-line MacBook, I have in my shirt pocket two fountain pens -- a Mont Blanc, circa 1989 (West Germany), and a Shaeffer, circa 2008. Even as I write these words on a pristine white keyboard, two fingers on my right hand are stained with black ink from my most recent refilling.

On my bureau at home rest about eight other fountain pens of various circa, going back to pens my parents used in the 1950s. All are in tip-top condition. I have in my newspaper desk drawer a bottle of Waterman ink; in my bookbag, a bottle of Pelikan ink, and on my desk at home bottles of Mont Blanc and Noodlers Ink (in turquoise). I write and take notes only with fountain pens, as is the case with at least two of my colleagues at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the oldest newspaper west of the Mississippi.

Here in River City (Little Rock), there is a family-owned business (Vanness, opened in 1939) whose display and selection of new and beautiful fountain pens is superior to the pen shops in New York and Washington.

Not only has the fountain pen not died, it still lives a glorious life and is contributing to the stellar journalism at Arkansas' state newspaper.

All that to say that as the fountain pen lives, so do (and will) newspapers.

Cordially,
Jay Grelen
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

[Permalink]

Infinite Mind critics respond to producer

5/11/2008 4:30:43 PM

From JEANNE LENZER and SHANNON BROWNLEE: Bill Lichtenstein fails to contradict the key points we made in our article; namely that The Infinite Mind series was funded in part by drug company money; that each of the four experts on the show, "Prozac Nation: Revisited" has received drug company funding; that despite enormous controversy about the safety and efficacy of antidepressants, the experts all expressed a singular viewpoint; and finally, listeners were not told about the experts� financial conflicts of interest.

No matter how much Mr Lichtenstein tries to explain away such financial conflicts, repeated studies of pharmaceutical funding through "unrestricted grants" shows that Big Pharma doesn�t spend money where it doesn�t pay off. In fact, they study their return on investments very carefully. For example, �unrestricted grants� by drug companies for continuing medical education programs have been shown have a biasing effect on their physician audiences. In response, the American Medical Association's ethics journal recommended that drug companies should not be allowed to pay for CME because it led to biased conclusions and inappropriate changes in doctors� prescribing practices. Research has also consistently found that academics who have financial conflicts of interest such as speaking honoraria, consulting fees, and paid board memberships tend to produce research results that cast their benefactors� products in a positive light.

Mr Lichtenstein claims that one of us (Lenzer) pitched him a radio show. Quite the opposite. When Lenzer called Mr. Lichtenstein for an interview, after he realized our interest was in the funding of his guests and the absence of those with contrary views from the show, it was he who suggested that we do a show, telling Lenzer that sometimes differing viewpoints are better heard with separate shows (which he used as a defense for why only those experts with pro-antidepressant viewpoints were present on Prozac Nation: Revisited). Lenzer responded to Mr. Lichtenstein�s offer of running a second show with a tentative yes, and added that she�d previously written an article on medicine and the media called Journalists on Prozac for the BMJ (previously the British Medical Journal).

Perhaps Mr. Lichtenstein has forgotten his last e-mail correspondence on the subject of a second show dated April 9th in which he said he had not yet decided whether to run it. He never addressed the issue again after that April 9th e-mail, despite a subsequent query from Lenzer. Numerous efforts to contact Mr. Lichtenstein and The Infinite Mind for comment for our piece in Slate went unanswered.

Finally, the BMJ article to which Mr. Lichtenstein refers involved a correction of a minor point � not a substantive one. In fact, the full truth about that story is one we plan to tell in another forum and a link HERE will be inserted when that article is published.

As for Lenzer�s credibility as a journalist, readers might like to know that the BMJ has continued to publish her articles on a regular basis. So have other respected outlets. She also won a coveted Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at MIT in 2006. But this brings us back to the beginning of our response: It is interesting that Mr. Lichtenstein�s comments do not contradict a single statement of fact found in our article. Instead he attempts to smear the reputation and credibility of the messenger. [Permalink]

Huge loss for Miami Herald

5/10/2008 1:47:37 PM

From AMY VERNON: Marty Merzer's departure from The Miami Herald, and journalism, is a huge loss.

I first encountered him when I was but a mere intern in the Palm Beach Bureau (I'm dating myself by saying that, I know), and he was one of the kindest, smartest and most generous reporters I ever had the pleasure of working with.

He gave me my first byline (a double w/his) on the front page of The Herald, an utter thrill for me.

A series he did a few years later about smokers trying to quit and their health issues (I'm oversimplifying) gave me horrible guilt and encouraged me to quit (I relapsed, but I was happy to tell Marty a few years ago that my quitting had finally stuck).

Through the years, we communicated only every now and again, usually me sending him a note about a story he wrote.

Probably the last time we communicated was when Bob Hope died (I'd long since left Ma Herald) and after reading several obits, I stumbled upon his and it was far and away the best of the lot.

I rarely wax poetic about anyone in this biz, perhaps in part because I fear sounding like a suckup.

But Marty was one of the best and I'll always be glad I had the chance to work with him and regret that others won't be able to in the future. [Permalink]

The Infinite Mind responds to Slate

5/9/2008 5:35:23 PM

From BILL LICHTENSTEIN, senior executive producer, The Infinite Mind: In their May 6 Slate.com article, Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee use The Infinite Mind's recent program "Prozac Nation: Revisited" to frame an argument that pharmaceutical companies are planting "stealth marketers" inside seemingly objective media outlets to manipulate public opinion. The article suggests that as public radio producers we have allowed our guests on our national weekly program to hide financial links with pharmaceutical companies for the purpose of promoting the use of dangerous prescription drugs.

Ironically, "Prozac Nation: Revisited" was intended to examine the way the media has handled links between violent behavior, suicide and antidepressants. Our interest in the story began with press reports about Steven Kazmierczak, whose shooting rampage at Northern Illinois University left six dead and 16 wounded. We wanted to know: Why did the major news media uniformly target Steven's withdrawal from an antidepressant as explanation for his violent act? Why did the media ignore any number of other factors, such as his gun collection, his work as a prison guard, or his troubled childhood? We were interested in exploring the reflexive public reaction that ends up making the medication the culprit, and so simplifies a disturbing violent act while stigmatizing the already vulnerable people who take or consider taking prescription medication for depression.

And at the core of the program, we asked the question we always ask, the question that has guided the past 10 years of The Infinite Mind: Where is the best science on this particular issue? In this case, does the science find links between antidepressant medications and out-of-control behavior?

To help us, we turned to recognized experts in the field. Framing the discussion, we began with Dr. Andrew Leuchter, director of UCLA's Laboratory of Behavior and Pharmacology, who himself has conducted much of the important research in this area.

Next, we spoke with Dr. Nada Stotland, current president of the American Psychiatric Association and an expert in medical ethics. Dr. Stotland, another distinguished research scientist and clinician, spoke about the gap between public perception and the research about violence, suicide and psycho pharmaceutical medications.

Finally, we talked to Peter Pitts, a former associate commissioner for the Food and Drug Administration who was involved in the FDA's 2004 "black box" labeling of antidepressants as carrying a risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior, and who was at the time the "go-to" guy for the FDA on that issue.

What we didn't know, because he didn't disclose it to us, was that Pitts is currently working for a public relations firm whose clients include major pharmaceutical companies. If we had known, and (full mea culpa here) we should have, we would have disclosed that connection. Pitts apparently didn't disclose it elsewhere, either - he's appeared on NPR's Talk of the Nation as well as PBS' News Hour with Jim Lehrer, without either of those programs mentioning the PR company ties./CONTINUED

The Infinite Mind responds to Slate

5/9/2008 5:32:50 PM

In any case, to suggest that distinguished researchers such as Drs. Stotland and Leuchter are shills for the drug industry is bad journalism. Pharmaceutical companies fund the lion's share of research being conducted today. There are strict ethical codes and laws governing the use of such funds. Journalists covering this industry know that, and routinely disclose only those ties that are likely to raise serious questions about a researcher's neutrality. It would be patently ridiculous, for example, to presume that Dr. Stotland, speaking for all American psychiatrists as president of the APA, would somehow distort the truth because of some past connection to an industry speakers' bureau.

It is important to state that we stand by the program and its editorial content. There is, as our guests observed, no credible evidence that the use of antidepressants contributes to the sort of violence that erupted at NIU. There is, on the other hand, a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggesting that more young people may be dying in part because of the chilling effect of the FDA "black box" warning. While some will take issue with these studies, we believe they are important, that they deepen the public dialog, and that they've gotten lost in superficial media coverage of a complex issue.

So finally, let's tackle the other question raised in the Slate article: Is it acceptable for a public radio program about the human mind to take grants from the pharmaceutical industry?

Back in 1994, I came face to face with that question. Preparing to produce a program about people living with schizophrenia, I met with Delano Lewis, who was at the time president of National Public Radio. I told Lewis that I had offers of unrestricted educational grants from several pharmaceutical companies who were interested in helping lift some of the stigma about this misunderstood and feared disease, but that I wasn't sure whether it would be proper to accept the grants.

The conversation that we had helped set the ground rules that have governed our underwriting ever since. Lewis began by observing that in many cases, especially on difficult and unpopular subjects, it would be hard to find support from organizations without some kind of substantial interest in the subject matter. The important thing, he said, was to assure listeners and stations that there was an absolute firewall between funding sources and editorial decision-making.

With this in mind, 14 years ago, we created a system with the following rules: We would take no more than 15 percent of our total budget from any one industry sector. We would not take substantial amounts from any one company. Corporate support would have to come in the form of unrestricted "no strings attached" educational grants. Corporate funding would be mixed with support from other sources (in the case of The Infinite Mind, that's been sources like the MacArthur Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.) We would list underwriters on the air. Under no circumstance would producers ever have editorial discussions with any funder; and it's probably important to note that in the case of the pharmaceutical industry, such conversations would be a violation of federal law as well as a violation of our own ethics as journalists. And, we would require employees to sign a code of conduct that requires disclosure of any potential conflict of interest and makes failure to disclose a fireable offense.

By the way, our 1994 program on schizophrenia, with substantial and disclosed support from the pharmaceutical industry, won a Peabody Award and was credited with changing the way Americans look at people with serious mental illness. Over the past 18 years, following these rules, our programming on the human mind has been honored with more than 60 awards for journalistic excellence and offering insight into issues that society would often prefer to ignore.

In the interest of full disclosure, I also should note for the record that Lenzer, who co-authored the Slate article, called me a few days after the "Prozac Nation: Revisited" program aired to pitch a program that she wanted us to do for The Infinite Mind, called "Journalists on Prozac," which would feature her and her writing partner Shannon Brownlee. Checking into Lenzer's credentials, I found a troubling article in The New York Times taking her to task for a British Medical Journal article that suggested that Eli Lilly and Company, which makes Prozac, had concealed documents about the link between anti-depressants, suicide and violence. The BMJ subsequently retracted the article, with full apologies, and the whole matter was widely covered in the news media.

After we told Jeanne Lenzer that we would not be proceeding with a program featuring her, she and Brownlee wrote the article for Slate. [Permalink]

Roberts-era reunion

5/9/2008 2:31:39 PM

From RUSSELL COOKE, editorial writer, Philadelphia Inquirer: The editors, reporters and photographers who, under editor Eugene L. Roberts Jr., brought 17 Pulitzers to The Philadelphia Inquirer � along with a camel, a goat and 46 frogs � are coming together again in Philadelphia in July for a first-ever staff reunion. Roberts and other top former editors will join other journalists who worked at the paper from 1972 to 1990, a group that embraced practical jokes (e.g, newsroom wildlife appearances) as an unofficial second vocation. A reunion website contains all the details. [Permalink]

They're still using the fountain pen

5/9/2008 2:26:44 PM

From TREVOR BUTTERWORTH: While I applaud Tim McGuire's fighting words about newsprint, I deplore his comment about the death of fountain pens. Says who? The fountain pen is in fact one of the few growth sectors in the writing instrument market - indeed, those who use them range from P Diddy to Nick Lemann. [Permalink]

Overcoming the community gap

4/24/2008 3:34:12 PM

From WILL BUNCH: Dear colleagues, I'm seeking your stories and opinions for an article that I'm currently writing for American Journalism Review on how our profession can overcome what I'd call "the community gap." The basic paradox is this: Most experts say the way to salvation for 21st Century news organizations is get closer to our communities -- not only to emphasize local and even "hyperlocal," or neighborhood, news but to use blogging and other tools such as "crowdsourcing" to get to know our local readers and forge two-way conversations. Certainly that's how many independent blogs have become successful, by creating online communities of people with common interests. But really, is there anything more alien to the lone-wolf, typical 20th-Century trained newspaper journalist than "community."

I speak from personal experience. In writing my own blog with the everything-Philly title of "Attytood," I�ve had to toss my New York roots -- especially 35 years as a diehard Mets fan, now reformed -- down "the memory hole." But I think I'm typical -- for the last generation or two, the career travel map for an ambitious journalist has resembled that of a left-handed middle-innings relief pitcher. Many of us don't work where we grew up with friends and family, and the long hours of journalism make it hard to make new connections outside of the newsroom. What's more, the conventions of journalism make civic activities problematic, especially for anything that might have a political aspect to it. (In fact, some journalists don't even vote on principle.)

I'm looking for other journalists to tell me their stories. Do you feel connected to where you work? If not, do you see that as an obstacle -- especially if we're looking for journalism that is more local and more personal, with more two-way interactions with readers, local bloggers, etc. Conversely, if you do feel connected to your community, how did you do it? Do you work in the town where you were born and raised, and has that been an asset? Do you have thoughts on the broader issues? Should journalists seek certain kinds of civic engagement, or would that compromise objectivity? Maybe you think a little detachment is a good thing. Either way, I would love to hear from you � my email address is bunchw@phillynews.com. Thanks for your help. [Permalink]

It's good to raise the bar for citizen journalists

4/16/2008 2:32:07 PM

From STEVE DOIG: Subject -- Joel Mathis' note. Yes, Michael Tomasky's suggested rules would raise the bar. That's a good thing.

If "citizen journalists" want to claim the second word in that title, they ought to follow rules that citizens seem to expect of journalists. These include avoidance (or at least disclosure) of overt partiality. And I see nothing in his suggestions that shut "regular people" out of the conversation, as Mathis claims. But "conversation" is not journalism.

For the past year or so, I have been doing training around the country for bloggers interested in investigative work. I'm not one of those who
say "blogs aren't journalism". A blog is just a medium and a style of publishing. But a blogger is a journalist only if he or she is doing journalism -- verifying information gathered, seeking response, avoiding conflicts of interest, and otherwise following long-established rules of ethical behavior. [Permalink]

Page 12 of 50 [ |< << < 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 > >> >| ]

Return to Previous Page

See All Jobs

Add Your Resume

Post Your Job

Become a Member

More media jobs

Poynter Forums

Latest Poynter Blogs (See All Blogs)