In recent months, stories have arisen about journalists and mediafolk who have been unmasked as having been on the payroll of government agencies. It was bad enough to be worrying about paid reviewers of products being touted on TV shows as objective individuals, but when we find that the government is involved, too, it's too much to take.

It's probably not a new occurrence, this journalist-taking-funds situation. Those who'd like to pin this on the Bush administration solely are missing the big picture - kind of like people who think that the U.S. would never be involved with "undercover" operations on foreign soil, because "We're not like that." The fact of the matter is that it is happening, and the third time's a charm. How deep does this go? How many objective journalists are going to show up with good articles that might speak favorably about government programs and have their work reviewed like they were already guilty, even when they're not?

The news from USA Today's Mark Memmott about a freelancer who took almost $10,000 from the Agriculture Department a few years ago and then proceeded to write articles that were published by magazines is just another wake up call. Except in this case, the freelance writer, Dave Smith, says that he "clearly spelled out to [the publications]" what the situation was - but apparently, neither magazine mentioned in any way, shape, or form that this was an article by someone on the federal payroll, freelance or otherwise. So who's to blame? Not for nothing, the government has enough PR pros who do this kind of thing all day, probably even sending letters to the editor on a regular basis. But there's a transparency there that isn't seen here - and the magazines might be the one who bite the bullet, if they really did know the deal.

If there's one thing you can learn while working as a journalist (or just playing one on your blog), it's that information is everywhere. Tons of it. Company performance information, mergers & acquisition rumors, hirings and firings, new products-to-be, and much more. The important thing is knowing what to pursue, and what not to - and how. On occasion, information comes on a silver platter, as a news release from a company or a hot tip from a source. Those need investigation, but sometimes go out with a little less digging than a story would like to have included because of the time factor. Sometimes, the silver platter press release or tip comes with a caveat - an embargo. Sometimes you have a few hours, sometimes a few days, it all varies. Experiences with embargoes vary - sometimes companies just wildly send out press releases to every editor on their press list, saying "don't publish this till Monday," or something along those lines. If a company or PR rep is smart, s/he will make some sort of contact with a journalist / editor and discuss the embargo along with the tip, and work out getting an interview or other information over to the journalist in a timely manner. It's fairly commonplace, and is typically something a publication will agree to, even though one or more other publications may have made similar deals. A time or date is set, and everyone is on "the same playing field," so to speak.

Back in December of 2004, Wired News' Adam Penenberg made the case for ditching embargoes altogether, calling it "a shame" that publications like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, along with the Associated Press "continue to toe the line." Well, what if those news organizations were to not agree with embargoes - better yet, what if one of them broke an embargo?

That seems to be the case this week, with the Times publishing Katharine Seelye's article, "Newspaper Giants Buy Web News Monitor," on Tuesday night. This story was embargoed until midnight Eastern, multiple sources have confirmed, but the story hit the wire first out of the NYT's gates, sometime between 11 and 11:30p.m. Consultant / blogger Susan Mernit quickly responded with the post she had written on the subject shortly afterward. Mernit had been privy to the information before the midnight timeframe and had agreed to follow the embargo. Other publications, including the Journal and PaidContent (which was not under embargo) published stories on the topic as well. Once the dam was broken, the water began to flow - a lot.

This begs the question - what's the point of embargoing a story or information if a publication is going to break it. A little over a month ago, MarketWatch's Frank Barnako called out bloggers for not being able to "keep a secret." But it's obviously not just bloggers who can't keep a secret - or can they? It appears that there were many a blogger who had access to the Topix.net acquisition information, with a few of them having interviewed Topix staff and done a little bit of research that afternoon as the time ticked closer to midnight. So why the free pass? Good question. And what happens next?

Last October, Rebecca Lieb wrote an item at ClickZ about embargoes, and how they should be handled. She even includes suggestions of what should be done if one is broken.

If a publication breaks an embargo, PR must act swiftly and punitively against the outlet that broke it. Strike it from the list of media accorded priority access. But don't come down on any of the subsequent torrent of publications that immediately rush to get their story up on the embargoed topic. It's already out there. We've seen it on RSS feeds, gotten frantic IMs and e-mail messages. PRs must discipline the perpetrator, not the other victims.

But would this ever happen to the vaunted New York Times? I'm guessing someone gave a call to the publication in this case, but it's obviously unexpected that it will be left off of anyone's "invite" list for stories going forward. But should it be? Penenberg clarified the reality behind embargoes today, stating that their use "levels the playing field, otherwise, the thinking goes, The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times would have every scoop handed to them." Which is more or less what happened here. The Times got recognition for being first to the dance, when meanwhile it was supposed to be playing along with everyone else.

A quick search in Google yields a stack of results about broken embargoes. L.A. Observed had an item from back in September of 2003 where recently departed Newsday staffer Laurie Garrett complained that the Times had been guilty of doing just this. The Sunday Herald has a story about a broken embargo by the London Evening Standard, which appeared to be trying to beat the rush to a story.

So why now, on this story? A request to the Times corporate communications department about the paper's 'policy' on embargoed stories has not been responded to as of this time, so is unclear as to the official reason for this action. That said, what about the easy explanations? Well, is it possible that since the people on the print side of the publication had access to Seelye's story for deadline reasons that the folks on the online side were "accidentally" given the article or made it live prematurely. But it's safe to assume that the Times is technically unable to place a story online at midnight exactly, right? Additionally, Topix VP of Marketing Chris Tolles clarified that the Associated Press discussed just this situation, and made it very clear that the print side would have the story early in order to make all deadlines, and the online side received it whenever it was necessary to reach the Internet in a timely manner.

These days, the bloggers who are receiving sensitive information that may or may not be under embargo are generally pretty smart about handling it with care. Most bloggers are happy to be considered a media source at all, and the ones who have journalism experience are even better off. When asked about embargoed stories, one prominent sports blogger told The Media Drop: "From my business experience, my word is my bond. If somebody comes to me and asks me to respect an embargo in exchange for access to information, I'll always respect it. Otherwise I'm dead. On the other hand, if someone sends me something blind, I don't believe I'm under any requirement to respect it. Do that, and you take your chances."

For argument's sake, let's just say that the former situation is what happened here. If a few publications and bloggers were able to keep the cat in the bag for that long, why did it work out the way it did?

Hammock Publishing president and blogger Rex Hammock believes there are times when an embargo is worthwhile and should be respected. "As someone who spent a few years early in my career as a press secretary for a U.S. congressman and then in a PR firm, I know there were times when I would work with a reporter on a specific story for an extended period before the story was published. Sometimes those were stories being pitched by me and other times, in response to a reporter working on a project. And, in those cases, I think the concept of an "embargo" on me discussing it with others was appropriate." Hammock does agree that "broadcast" press releases that a company is expecting to be kept quiet is "an anachronistic concept." He cites the early release of exit poll numbers during 2004's presidential election as being an example of "a disservice" being done by a media outlet (or outlets), and one that has had a residual effect on his reading of those who published the data.

Advertising blogger Steve Hall, who mans Adrants.com, keeps it simple when asked of his opinion on embargoes in general, stating that "Just like our parents taught us, if a promise is made, a promise should be kept. If an embargo can't be honored, don't lie and say it will be just to get the story. It's not honest. It's not right." Obviously the input of three bloggers isn't meant to defeat Barnako's - or anyone else's - contention that the collective group of them could keep information confidential in the same manner as a professional journalist would, but to serve as an example that there are many a cool head among the group.

Professionally, my day job allows me to work on the other side of the embargo wall. But I'm not a professional journalist (I just play one on some blogs), so I thought it would be worthwhile to get some background on their use and perception. They're not loved by everyone, but most people understand when they're used. A veteran broadcast journalist told me that they do serve a purpose, and that as long as they are in use they should be taken seriously. When a major news organization bypasses one, they should be treated the same way that a smaller one or individual who leaked the information is. Which leads back to the question above: Who's going to stand up to the Times? The reasons for a publication like this going forward with a story before it should be hitting the wire is simple - getting the scoop. The playing field had been leveled, but that doesn't matter -- because the pub is what it is, and no one is going to say otherwise. This intrepid writer believes that while the Times obviously holds a special place in the hearts of many, that doesn't mean that a company absolutely has to have a story in its pages or gracing its website for the news to make it across the vast readership out there. Perhaps that's heresy to say, but it's a chance worth taking.

In Sunday's Cincinnati Enquirer, John Kiesewetter details the situation at local radio station WLW-AM, whose staffers have been informed that they can make no mention of any television station personalities - or stations at all - that compete with WLW owner Clear Channel's WKRC-TV. Nor will ads for the "competition" make the airwaves.

Radio stations not discussing other radio stations - or TV stations doing the same isn't too uncommon. But one format not being able to report, or discuss, another seems a little over the top - and the only people that lose out are the listeners. Now, WLW listeners will never know if WKRC is being discussed more often because it's in the news, or because Clear Channel has affected what's going on internally.

Editor & Publisher's Joe Strupp has details on the "recall" of a sports reporter for the Worcester Telegram & Gazette from his post in Jacksonville to cover the New England Patriots at the Super Bowl. It turns out that a recent piece that ran on Ken Powers' byline contained "substantial portions" of a column by Sports Illustrated's Peter King from a week earlier. Strupp reports that an investigation is underway and that Powers is on leave from the paper at this time.

[update] Bruce Allen at Boston Sports Media is all over this story, with a side-by-side (top-by-bottom?) comparison of Powers vs. King prose. It's pretty....damning.

[update 2/3, 7:52pm] Powers has been fired by the Telegram & Gazette, Strupp reports Thursday night.

For the last day and a half, I've been trying to figure out what, if any, warnings were given to the people in the various areas affected by Sunday's tsunami in southern Asia / India. As it turns out, it doesn't appear to be just as simple as a lack of "emergency broadcast system" such as the one offered in the United States. I am sure that some, though not necessarily all, of these places have some sort of media coming into them - radio, television, something. But it doesn't appear that anything got out to the people - including residents of these areas.

Alice Marshall points out a post by Mark A.R. Kleiman stating that it's not a good enough answer to say that there is no government-issued warning system in place. If there was warning - and there was, up to almost two hours in some cases - then at the very least the local/int'l media should have been notified and they could have done their best to disseminate this information throughout the populace. I wholeheartedly agree.

I promise you, a phone call from the International Tsunami Information Center saying "There's just been a Richter 9.0 quake in Sumatra and a big tsunami will hit the following places at the following times" will receive the undivided attention of any newsdesk in the world.

Indeed.

To boot, Kevin at Wizbang! writes about what allegedly happened in Thailand, where "experts" sat around trying to figure out what to do, and chose not to make a warning because they didn't want to scare tourists - just in case nothing actually happened. I understand their concern for the tourism industry, but what's worse - the egg on your face for being told you were "crying wolf" or the bodies of 60,000 (and counting) dead people, tourists or not. Every day, thousands of weather predictions are made, some more dramatic than others - do they all happen? No. Are they sometimes right? You betcha. I'd say airing on the side of caution would probably have been the smart thing to do in this case. Instead, we end up with one of those movie scenes where the government knows about the impending asteroid collision and decides not to tell anyone about it for fear of panic. Meanwhile, the panic is going to ensue once everyone sees the giant fireball approaching in the sky anyway.

[ed: If you are interested in donating to the relief efforts, Amazon.com seems to be leading the way in gathering funds. Jeff Jarvis says that when Glenn Reynolds originally posted at about 5pm Eastern time Tuesday, there were $112k in donations - then, at 8, it was about $360k. It's now $597k, with about 12,000 individual payments - they're accepting donations as low as $5.]

LGF's Charles Johnson leads us to an E&P story by Joe Strupp that discusses the lawsuit filed by eight individuals - six Navy SEALs and two of their wives - against the Associated Press on Tuesday for the use of a photograph that showed the SEALs' faces. The suit states that the AP's publishing of the photo has made their identities public - and it appears that the photo(s) were presumably used without permission after being found by a journalist on the personal website of one SEAL's wife.

Tuesday's Editor & Publisher story about a proposed update to the ethics policy at the Associated Press detailed some concerns among union leaders about some of the restrictions involved. That being said, it appears that many of the tenets put forth are basic principles that AP staffers - along with journalists elsewhere - have followed for years.

A veteran AP reporter tells TMD that the rules surrounding anonymous sources "are not controversial at all," and reiterated that this concept has been applied for quite some time. However, the idea that "editors and writers who regularly cover the financial markets may not own stock in any company" need additional clarification, as fixtures such as specialized mutual funds "could present some conflict-of-interest problems" for staffers. This is the type of feedback that AP executive editor Kathleen Carroll was looking to receive before making this policy formal, as discussed in the E&P article.

One thing I found to be curious was the new guideline for approval of any and all freelancing, irrelevant of a staffer's perception of conflict of interest, at the same time that there are reportedly discussions within AP's management circles to be "more supportive" towards staffers who are looking to write their own books. E&P's Joe Strupp points out that AP staffers are permitted to freelance, according to their News Media Guild contract, "as long as there is no conflict with a writer's AP assignments." The issue here is that many reporters have books that evolved out of stories they covered for the AP at one point - so a case-by-case scenario may come out of this.

[update] Doug Fisher has more, including a link to the entire policy.

Editor & Publisher's Joe Strupp has the scoop on a proposed ethics policy that's causing a stir with union leaders representing Associated Press journalists. The items in question include proper use of datelines, attribution for anonymous sources, and restrictions on ownership of company stock.

In the United States - and most of the West - the media is outwardly criticized for being unfair in some cases, especially in their political coverage. While this may be true, they're not usually described as being untruthful in their broadcasts and printed pages. This isn't the case everywhere on the planet, unfortunately.

For those who might be considered as leading "sheltered" lives when considering press freedoms, this is a historic week when it comes to mass media. For in the Ukraine, a huge change is afoot, as some television media outlets have decided to become more honest with the public, and not let the current government hold its power over them any longer.

On Thursday, Roman Olearchyk wrote in the Kyiv Post about public statements made by television stations 1+1 and UT-1 - the latter being a state-owned entity. 1+1 replaced its news program editor, Vyacheslav Pikhovshek, as part of their transition, and UT-1 took a decidely different tact towards its reporting.

A recent survey of journalists funded by Democratic Initiatives Foundation, a western-funded NGO, singled out Pikhovshek as the “least trusted” journalist in Ukraine.

Much like our news media moves out the old guard in order to change their tune as far as ratings go, 1+1 is 'listening' to the people - journalists are citizens, too. Olearchyk also reports on strikes by staffers at UT-1, purely looking for "fair coverage" by the stations.

To understand how such a thing as a lack of "true" press freedom could exist is kind of a fascinating thing for most, including myself. With the advent of the Internet and other broadcast methods, one might think that eluding an intrusive government wouldn't be too difficult. But when the mass media is literally controlled by the state, the inundation of propaganda and the like is probably overwhelming to the point of effectiveness. Passive society means limited opposition. That's where the journalists come in. By effectively refusing to cover stories in a certain manner, they take away the "bread and butter" of the government, as it is not able to spew its directives and belief system to the public-at-large.

The CIA provides some statistics on the Ukraine, which has approximately 47 million persons on a land mass a little smaller than the state of Texas. While the country is considered "independent," as it seems what might be considered the "old guard" still has its claws in the government, media, and economic resources - hence the media's bias towards what the state wants to be said. And unlike the current situation in Russia, which has shifted towards the state-run media outlets repeating the party line for the most part, the Ukraine's rank and file seem to be taking a stand. And it's working. On Saturday, the country's Parliament effectively (but not truly) overturned recent elections, reports the New York Times's Steven Lee Myers. The media had been acting in lock-step with the state's push for current Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich to continue on as president, replacing Leonid Kuchma, who had led the country for a decade. But no longer. As Australia's The Age prints in this item, "Media comes clean," the world - or at least the Ukraine, is a better place for it.

Said 1+1's Lyudmila Dobrovolska on Friday [via the Telegraph]:

"We take full responsibility for the distorted information aired on our channel under the direction of various political forces," it read.

"From now on we will give only objective and truthful information, and the opinions of all the political parties in the country."

Every once in a while the media does something commendable to make people realize that it's not just all about ratings, personal biases, and "bad news" - this is one of those times.

This afternoon, I was tipped off about this post by a seemingly anonymous blogger going by the name "Bill," who has been writing the "Blogging versus Journalism" site since October 4. That post from Monday bears a significant resemblance to this column by Steve Outing from November 19 at Editor & Publisher. It is not the whole article, but grafs used here and there, with a few tweaks to the text. There is no credit, no mention of Outing or E&P, nothing.

I'm not sure if the blogger is really a journalist or not, as the blog*spot site is "justacrazyjournalist.blogspot.com," but s/he isn't doing any favors for him/herself, nor bloggers as a whole.

I thought perhaps this was an oddity, and took a random scroll through the site's archives. While many of the entries are blockquotes with attributed links, that isn't the case for everything, unfortunately.

As Drudge would say, "DEVELOPING."

[Thanks, Mark]

[update] Some good examples here and here.

The discussion is continuing here at Steve Rubel's Micro Persuasion. Rubel is rightly "keeping an open mind" on the matter, but anonymity is keeping us from being able to get a response from "Bill" at this point. Needless to say, this looks kind of iffy, IMHO.

[update 11/25] The Steve Outing-related piece seems to have been removed from the blog*spot site with no further comment from the 'source'.

[ed: originally posted here]

David at VodkaFish informs that after opening up the National Hockey League Players Association website to members of the media, one agent will be barred from working with players in the union in their contract negotiations with the league. The primary reason was for the unveiling of the "NHLPA SCORE" program, which allows player agents to quickly obtain data necessary to get their players the best contracts.

While the agent remains anonymous at this point, it would appear that the reporter is not. On November 7, Chris Snow of the Star Tribune offered a detailed look into the SCORE system, including examples of pulling statistics and other information that would be useful to agents.

As of post time, Snow has not responded to email regarding this issue.

Newsday circulation was overstated by 16.9% daily and 14.5% on Sunday between October 1, 2002 and September 30, 2003, according to a press release Tuesday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC). Details as follows:

-Average audited daily circulation during the period was adjusted by 97,783 copies to 481,816 compared to 579,599 originally reported by Newsday - a difference of 16.9 percent.

-Average audited Saturday circulation during the period was adjusted by 24,181 copies to 392,649 compared to 416,830 originally reported by Newsday - a difference of 5.8 percent.

-Average audited Sunday circulation during the period was adjusted by 97,739 copies to 574,081 compared to 671,820 originally reported by Newsday - a difference of 14.5 percent

The ABC reiterated its order from July when it declared that the paper's owner, Tribune, must provide audit reports twice a year. ABC president and managing director, Michael Lavery, said in a statement that "These findings are a result of irregularities and errors identified during the course of ABC's annual audit of Newsday. The results of the audit are consistent with the ABC Board's decision in July to censure Newsday for its circumvention of the ABC's rules, rules to which all members agree to abide."

No word on when the twice-yearly audits will end for Newsday and fellow Tribune pub Hoy.

The Visalia Times-Delta runs a piece by the paper's executive editor, Linda Green, about the way sources - specifically unnamed ones - are utilized in that particular paper. Green, like other editors, believe that they are doing the right thing when they use these sources in their publication - she says "We should be able to simply agree to withhold someone's name."

As a news reader, I would feel confident with an editor who clearly stated when and why an anonymous source would be used as a resource. But with the criticism (much of it deserved) that our media has taken recently, is this the case for most people?

In Tuesday's Christian Science Monitor, Emerson College assistant professor of journalism Janet Kolodzy offers a unique look into the story behind the death of Victoria Snelgrove, the Emerson student who was accidentally killed by police on October 21 during riot control in Boston after a baseball game. You see, Kolodzy was not only on the receiving end of a neverending line of media members looking for information on Snelgrove's death, but she was one of the young woman's teachers in journalism class.

Related:

"School thinking about blocking city paper on campus" - TMD

"A Question Of Responsibility" - Off Wing Opinion

Steve Hall at Adrants points out more details on the Newsday circulation scandal in the Long Island Press. This article is a full blown investigative report by Christopher Twarowski and Timothy Bolger that seems to show employees and agents of the Long Island newspaper working on behalf of the company in order to dispose of newspapers that were produced in excess - sometimes even before the issues were to hit the streets - papers that are assumed to be counted in paid circulation figures.

Jennifer Vestal writes in UNC-Charlotte's University Times that the school will be offering a new course come the Spring 2005 semester - Journalism ethics. Now it's not as if journalism students haven't been learning about ethical behavior up to this point, but with such a focus and keen eye on the media right now, "it is about time we devoted a class to it," says Cheryl Spainhour, journalism professor at the school.

Michelle Malkin points to an interesting find by some blogs and Free Republic posters (not sure of the original source just yet) about some images of President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush on the CNN / Netscape website that had filenames that are, irrelevant of your political leaning, inexcusable to have on a news organization website. The fact that some employees may have gone out on their own to do this does nothing but cause harm to CNN's brand and viewer opinion of their ethics.

At this time, at least one of the images that have been found have had a name change - but not all. This one is still up.

[update: 12pm] This file is now gone, too.

I have reached out to Time Warner Corporate Communications today, but have not yet received a response.

[update: 1:55pm] Drudge leads us to Tabloid Column, who has screenshots of the CNN site.

[update: 11/5 1:38pm] Steve Rubel posts a link to a Register article on the subject, where CNN has stated that it was purely a Netscape issue, and was nothing placed on the CNN.com website. Also, the employee who named the photographs has apparently "been terminated."

On October 26, the New York Post had an item about possible circulation issues at their crosstown rival, the Daily News. On Wednesday, the Daily News picks up on the story that the Post had been subpoenaed by the U.S. Attorney's office regarding its own circulation records.

City Pages has an article on Wednesday by Jim Walsh about the recent suspension of two Pioneer Press reporters for attending a political concert. More specifically, the article is about the Press not covering the story on its own pages until the paper's editor, Vicki Gowler, wrote about why the disciplinary action was taken.

Since this story went public, or, as Walsh tells it, has "appeared in newspapers all over the United States and United Kingdom and popped up in several journalism and media websites and blogs," a stack of letters to the editor have been sent to the Press in defense of the reporters. But as of today, none of them had run in that paper, as far as I can tell.

I reached out to Walsh this morning to ask if he had heard anything from the Pioneer Press about City Pages' posting of the letters, but as of this morning, there was no formal response. After checking in with the Press, however, I received a copy of a letter sent by Gowler over to Steve Perry, City Pages editor. The full text of the letter is below.

Oct. 27, 2004

Steve Perry
Editor, City Pages
401 North Third Street, Suite 550
Minneapolis, MN 55401

Following is the text of a letter to the editor from the Pioneer Press responding to today's City Pages story by Jim Walsh. In fairness, I would appreciate posting of this letter online, rather than delaying publication until next week's print edition.

To the Editor,

I am surprised and disappointed that City Pages did not contact the Pioneer Press for our position before publishing its story today about the recent suspension of two reporters.

I hope the following information will provide some perspective on the story by reporter Jim Walsh.

Our handling of this issue is consistent with longstanding practice. The situation involves a personnel issue at the Pioneer Press, and we do not cover such internal matters, including disciplinary actions involving individual employees.

On the related issue of what we choose to publish on our Viewpoints page, following is a statement from Editorial Page Editor Art Coulson:

"We do not publish letters about internal personnel matters, including individual disciplinary actions, at local companies. That would include the Pioneer Press. We also do not generally publish letters from out of state, as many of these were. We do not publish letters that contain factual errors, as several of the letters in question did. We receive more than four times as many letters as we have room to publish (that ratio is actually higher this election season) and we give preference to letters that are concise, local and on a topic of broad general interest."

Finally, I'd like to point out that Walsh did not include in his story a letter to the editor that was supportive of the Pioneer Press.

Vicki Gowler
Editor

It looks like while some might criticize the Pioneer Press for not publishing a story about a staff issue, they do seem to have a policy on the topic, so you cannot fault them for it. I'm truly more surprised that Gowler didn't take City Pages to task a little bit more for running the letters - but then again, someone at the Press had to have sent them over to the site, so that's a just opening another can o' worms.

The New York Post's Holly Sanders and Tim Arango have a story Tuesday about a potential circulation concern at their crosstown rival, the New York Daily News. According to their investigation, some practices that the Daily News claim meet the standards set by the Audit Bureau of Circulation seem a little suspicious, including grocery stores paying for newspapers up front, giving them away to customers when they make other purchases of various amounts, and then being reimbursed for the bulk of the costs of the papers - by the newspaper itself.

While the ABC does not "comment on circumstances at any particular paper," the article does contain a quote from Michael Moran, executive vice president of auditing services at the Bureau, when presented a similar scenario as a hypothetical. "The circulation-audit procedure we have would cause us to ask questions. An auditor would ask questions and want to investigate further."

The Post and News have been embroiled in a war of words when it comes to circulation for the last few years, and this doesn't look like it'll help matters. I'd expect either an investigation or further announcement by the News at some point on this subject.

A few publications have, in recent months, made it policy that their reporters could not attend politically motivated concerts, mostly in response to the "Vote for Change" concerts sponsored by MoveOn.org. On Tuesday, Workday Minnesota's Barb Kucera informed us that two reporters at the St. Paul Pioneer Press were suspended earlier this month after attending one of these concerts. The newspaper states that reporters were not to go to any of these concerts, but the reporters, Chuck Laszewski and Rick Linsk, attended the October 5 show anyway. The Newspaper Guild is holding up that Laszewski and Linsk are not involved in political reporting at all, and should not be prohibited from attending such a show.

RatherBiased.com, plagued with server troubles yet again, doesn't fail to bring yet another scoop to the 'net. Last night (and updated this morning) they reported that an item on CBS News about suspicions that Selective Service will reinstitute a military draft if President Bush was re-elected was based on....more "sources" that aren't exactly clean.

Thanks to Rathergate.com for helping out with hosting RBDC's postings - they're also responsible for setting up a way to support RatherBiased's needs, which have increased based on the interest these latest CBS News stories have garnered. They've stepped up big here, so if you would like to help out, drop by their site and donate some funds.

Power Line has more, including a statement from Selective Service that says it is "not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces."

Over at Wizbang!, Kevin Aylward points out a slight adjustment to a quote in an AP story that includes Senator John Kerry's infamous "I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it" line. On Wednesday morning, an interview with Kerry and ABC's Diane Sawyer ran on the "Good Morning America" program. During the interview, Kerry said that the quote "was a very inarticulate way of saying something" and that it was said "late in the evening when I was dead tired." But, as Aylward links, the Washington Post reported back in March that this quote was said "at a noontime appearance."

I expect that some mud will fly here, but the most interesting thing is the AP article on the subject, which says "It was just a very inarticulate way of saying something and I had one of those inarticulate moments," but leaves out the "late in the evening" aspect of the quote. Obviously you can't say the gun is absolutely smoking, but it certainly doesn't look too good for the candidate or the wire story. If it's known as fact that Kerry made the comments while it was daytime, and then counters it saying that it was late at night, causing the gaffe, then the context around the quote is completely removed. Or at least that's how I see it.

The ABC News coverage of the interview, including the original quotes from the program, can be found here.

Kerri Elgar at The Australian comments on an informal survey put together to determine how members of the media felt about the digital editing of photographs used in a publication. The results might be surprising, especially when comparing the opinions of Americans versus those of Europeans and Australians.

The hits just keep on coming...

The New York Observer's Joe Hagan has details on another situation that will surely not make CBS News look good in the public eye. This time around, Hagan reports, the network was found to have been using a "rogue soldier," Jonathan Idema, to provide them with stories from deep inside Afghanistan. But that's not the problem - it seems that Idema was arrested last July for operating a private jail - which CBS employees reportedly knew about but continued to use him as an "on the ground" operative for some time before his arrest. The network claims that they had no prior knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Idema's actions, however.

Even if CBS employees weren't involved in the videotaping or situation in Afghanistan, this story does one important thing - adds to a particular pattern of behavior. Since we live in a time when the term "vetted" is now part of the public's lexicon, and not just that of speechwriters and journalist-types, I suppose it would be fair to point out that this just adds to the criticism of the network overall. They are either doing a very poor job of checking backgrounds on their sources, or they are running with material they know might be sketchy, in order to keep up with the Joneses - i.e. the rest of the news organizations. And while the latter is probably not the case, it shouldn't be left out of the realm of possibilities - the network's ratings haven't exactly been stellar over the last few years, including a 10% drop since this time in 2003, the Chicago Tribune's John Cook writes.

And to continue the thread, check out this item at RatherBiased.com, with more details about the goings on at CBS and parent company Viacom.

While you have to take opinion columns a little bit more differently than you would a straight news article, I'm a bit peeved by this item in Wednesday's Newsday by Danny Schechter. Michele at ASV posted about it this morning, and I take just as much offense to it as she does.

In the piece, Schecter claims that the whole flap around "memogate" or whatever we're calling it this half hour was only begun after a PR firm got involved and was pitching the story to people, even though most people have said that it was after they read something that a poster, "Buckhead," on a Free Republic thread had written about it. Is this to say that there is no independent-think going on, and that people who had knowledge of typewriting could not have investigated this on their own? Do people really think that while Bush's Air National Guard service may still be in question, and has been overshadowed by this story at CBS, that the media going live with something that may be falsified isn't a story? Yes, that's his point - but is it wrong for them to do so? Hell, even if it was some sort of setup by whomever Schechter believes it is, it's all part of the same story.

Is Schechter so blind to think that only "the rabid conservative grapevine and amen corner" picked this up and ran with it? While I hate injecting myself into a story such as this, I'm going to do so in order to prove a point. I consider myself one who covers "the media" - whatever that term may be. If it looks like something is fishy with a report done on a news program, I'm going to cover it. I don't care about which people from which side of the political spectrum are pushing it, I do my best to weed that out and figure out what the real story is - as a journalist, Schechter should believe that there are people out there who have the same skillsets he claims to have - the bullshit alarm. This smelled really really bad from the moment I heard about it - in turn, I picked pu on it a little bit. At the same time, I will happily point out that I am a registered Democrat who votes on his conscience and with whatever candidate(s) I believe will do the best job. Am I a "rabid conservative" or part of the "amen corner?" Heck, no. Stories are stories. Did this particular story "overshadow" questions that people have about the President's service in the National Guard? Sure it did. But in no way, shape, or form did any of the bloggers Michele mentioned in her post take the "pitch" from a PR firm and run with it following any lawyer's "leadership." Hell, the firm, Creative Response Concepts wrote in their Press Room that "the bloggers, and then CNS www.cnsnews.com [CRC's client], were moving this story, which we then began pushing to conservative media, news websites and "mainstream" press." Many of the bloggers who were hot and heavy on this story are those that Schechter would claim are on the "conservative grapevine" - which is true - but as far as I can tell, exactly zero of them claim to have been "led along" or having recieved a pitch from CRC on this story.

Obviously I can't disagree that those who have more conservative beliefs investigated this quite a bit - that's their "job" as bloggers of that persuasion. But to say that no one picked this up who thought it was a news story is just absurd. Until there's a media "watchdog" who isn't just trying to point out what people on the other side of the fence are saying that's bad, arguments and columns like this will appear. Just my two cents.

Inside INdiana Business has an article by Kyle Elyse Niederpruem that offers insights into how today's newsrooms are tackling the increased ethical demands being put on them by their readers, critics, and management. That's not to say that publications haven't been attempting to be ethically on the level all along, but that transparency has now entered the equation. Niederpruem, an ad agency vice president, has comments from editors at the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today, who all seem to have their own ways of handling things - but every single one of them is attempting to set an example, and are making sure people (including their readers) know what is going on in the newsroom on a regular basis.

All three of the publications discussed above have made it through various "scandals" over the years - they also have huge amounts of readership. What would a smaller, 20,000 circulation paper due if one of their top writers was caught in a scandal? Would they be able to survive?

Last week, concern arose about former New York Times reporter Jayson Blair's scheduled speaking engagement in front of journalism students at Winston-Salem State University. Well, the event took place last Wednesday, with Blair apologizing for "making it harder for blacks to succeed in journalism," but the speech wasn't that all the students necessarily expected - or wanted.

Mary Giunca of the Winston-Salem Journal covers the situation surrounding ex-New York Times reporter Jayson Blair's appearance at Winston-Salem State University on Wednesday. The concern? Blair is being paid $3,000 to appear, and many students are left wondering why he was chosen - and more importantly, why is he being paid to speak?

Details continue to emerge in the Newsday circulation scandal, which Gawker's Jessica Coen describes as "the most boring media debacle ever."

Nevertheless, I would be remiss if not follow her lead and point out this article by Holly Sanders at the New York Post that describes the various methods the paper used in order to pump up circulation, including sending people out to buy papers on the street "so auditors could witness [hawkers] selling papers."

And just for good measure, check out Jimmy Breslin's column from Tuesday, "Hard to keep good circulation going" - it's a real hoot.

Reuters covers the announcement by Richard Decherd, CEO of Belo Corporation, where the exec stated that he would not accept a bonus or raise this year, and made suggestions about how other Belo employees should be treated. Just one month ago, Belo announced that the Dallas Morning News, one of its newspapers, had misstated its circulation figures. They have since been hit with multiple suits by shareholders, and advertisers have most likely changed their buying habits.

After agreeing to drop a portion of their lawsuits, a group of car dealers who are currently suing Newsday will begin having their ads run again, the paper's James Madore informs. According to the story, no further damages can be given based on future advertisements, and ads will resume immediately. The lawsuits arose after Newsday announced in June that it had overstated its circulation figures - which are used to justify advertising rates.

This also proves that the car dealers need something that the newspaper has - readers.

Well, if having a fantastic food-fest on Saturday night wasn't enough, Tuesday brings a report from the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, who writes that the spa treatment currently being offered to media members covering the Republican National Convention is "all free of charge, a fact that seems to cause few ethical concerns."

[via Lost Remote]

Editor & Publisher has the details on Miami Herald editor Tom Fielder's latest announcement to the paper's staffers - according to the article, he has "banned his reporters from buying tickets to the upcoming wave of partisan political concerts."

Jessica Coen writes in today's Gawker "Top Story" about one media member's reaction to Saturday night's New York City Host Committee party at the Time Warner Center, where members of the press wined, dined, and were given a batch of discounts at shops in the building. The column in question was written by the Chicago Tribune's Mary Schmich, who concludes that the worst thing that happened was, speaking as a journalist who attended, "our refusal to see it as a problem." While it's definitely amusing to talk about, I think there could absolutely be some questions about this.

The press who had come to NYC in order to cover the Republican National Convention and the surrounding events were all invited - and by all reports spanned from on-air news talent to staffers from any out-of-town pub - to this shindig hosted by Mayor Bloomberg...as a way to welcome them all to the city for the week. But the question is, is this any different than hitting the press buffet at a sporting event? Obviously the scale isn't even on the same yardstick, but you catch my drift. Are the press that buyable that a hot (and temperature is where I'm going with this) party with quality food and schmoozing could create favorable coverage for Republicans? Or is it just the illusion cast upon journalists in a case like this enough for it to look bad. All kidding aside, is it cool to go to something like this before a political convention - and if it isn't, then why is it different than attending a party at, say, the Cannes Film Festival?