Symbolic NPR vote fails, symbolism succeeds*

Republicans in the House of Representatives rushed their first big vote of the lame-duck session: An effort to cut funds to NPR over a recent decision to fire Juan Williams for his remarks about Muslims on the Bill O'Reilly show. The effort failed, as the New York Times reports.

Indeed, the vote was symbolic. Had Republicans really wanted to cut NPR they would have waited until January, when they will have the majority and will be able to get partisan legislation passed. Instead, GOP leaders determined that it would be better to throw some early red meat to their most conservative constituents, force Democrats to side with spending taxpayer money on the "liberal media," and avoid an early partisan fight that would paint Republicans as more interested in revenging a Fox New employee than in doing the public's business.

(Note: I am a producer at an NPR-affiliated station, KCRW, though I don't work for NPR.)

*Update: And speaking of Fox News, chairman Roger Ailes compared NPR executives to Nazis because the firing of Juan Williams brought the Holocaust to mind. Ailes later apologized, saying he was "angry" and chose the wrong word.

Here's his angry ad-lib:

“They are, of course, Nazis. They have a kind of Nazi attitude. They are the left wing of Nazism. These guys don’t want any other point of view. They don’t even feel guilty using tax dollars to spout their propaganda. They are basically Air America with government funding to keep them alive.”

Where have all the watchdogs gone?*

Jodi Enda at American Journalism Review chronicles the decline of watchdog reporting on government regulators - including those that oversee mining and oil operations. As media companies decided to cut back on all that boring reporting (and the expense of paying for reporters to cover those boring beats), we ended up with less coverage overall. Instead, the journalists increasingly arrive after the tragedy and start to ask 'why?'.

Funny how that happens.

From the story:

Nine years ago, AJR documented how newspapers and wire services had shifted from covering government "buildings"--shorthand for a blanket approach to reporting on departments and agencies--to covering issue-oriented beats. (See "Where Are the Watchdogs?" July/August 2001.) Reporters abandoned their desks in what once had been bustling pressrooms in stately federal buildings all across the capital and worked from modern news bureaus in staid rooms that often resembled insurance offices. At the time, bureau chiefs explained in what might be described as lockstep language that the change was a way to bring alive coverage of dry policy issues, to engage readers who had tuned out incremental Washington stories.


"There's been a real castor-oil quality of coverage," Kathleen Carroll, then Knight Ridder's Washington bureau chief and now executive editor of the Associated Press, said in 2001. "If you look back at the way Washington stories were written in the past, you see that it's just boring as hell."


Bureau chiefs trumpeted their move to issue-related coverage, saying that by leaving the daily drudgery to the wires, they had more time and more resources to devote to investigative and enterprise reporting.

But toward what end? Did journalists use their newfound freedom from daily coverage to keep closer tabs on what really was happening behind the imposing façades of federal buildings? Did they do a better job of telling readers what was going on before and after, rather than during, press conferences? Did they forgo the dull, incremental stuff to better serve the American people, to make sure their elected and appointed officials were using taxpayers' money wisely and honestly, using sound judgment, serving the public good? Were they better watchdogs?


The evidence suggests the answer is no. Certainly, there have been some standout stories in the past decade--Knight Ridder stood virtually alone in questioning the Bush administration's march to war in Iraq; Copley News Service sent a corrupt member of Congress to prison. But it is no secret that the story of Washington newspaper bureaus in the 2000s is one of cutbacks and closures, and less coverage.

*Update: Jodi Enda will be a guest on today's "To The Point" to talk about her article. The segment will air just after 12:45 p.m. Pacific on KCRW 89.9, or stream it here.

The nine

The LA Weekly evaluated budget planning in the cities of Los Angeles, San Jose and Pasadena and came up with a list of nine mistakes L.A. made on its way to this year's budget crisis. LAW

Spare news

Local television news has been in decline for some time, but recently announced cutbacks at ABC and CBS news divisions shows an industry in decline. And, as with newspapers, industry leaders are telling themselves the same lies about how less is more. From the Wall Street Journal:

ABC has been experimenting with smaller newsgathering teams in far-flung locations. On late-night show "Nightline," staff sometimes shoot and edit their own material, a practice [ABC News president David] Westin cited in announcing his cuts.

"Maintaining the quality, or enhancing the quality, but for much less money—I think that is a very viable business model," Mr. Westin said.

NBC News also makes use of several "backpack" reporters. But NBC has no immediate plans to change its mix of traditional- and digital-reporting techniques, Mr. Capus said: "You have to pick your spots."

L.A. Times to have earlier deadlines*

Not only will the Los Angeles Times be thinner and narrower once it closes its Orange County printing plant and moves all operations downtown, but it's newsroom will have to contend with much earlier deadlines.

LA Observed reports that Times publisher Eddy Hartenstein has made a deal to print the Wall Street Journal, which rents the Times' presses for its West Coast edition, later in the day than his own paper. That will push the deadlines for Times reporters several hours forward - possibly as early as 6 p.m. The result will be that some late-breaking news won't appear in the morning edition of the printed edition.

From LAO:

I'm hearing that the Times' off-the-composing-floor deadline of 11 p.m. (with updates until midnight) for the front news section will move earlier by several hours, perhaps to 6 p.m. This would be, I'm pretty sure, the earliest regular deadline in the paper's modern history — at a time when the pressure to be fresher and newsier is greater. It might also mean that the New York Times' deadline for getting breaking news from California onto its front page will be later than the hometown LAT's.

Under the Hartenstein plan, big news that happens late won't be on the front page or even in the A section — which, remember, is now also the LAT's only local news section. Late news will run in a new section-lite being called AA — and branded as LATExtra. For now, at least, Stanton is telling the newsroom that AA will usually run behind the front section, not wrapped around the front page. Stanton's sales pitch today to skeptical editors and reporters was that the trade-off would have been more layoffs.

I've experienced these kinds of early deadlines due to crowded printing schedules and they are demoralizing.

*Update: Editors had to sign nondisclosure agreements, LAO reports.

Budget cuts raise concerns for NPR stations*

The Wall Street Journal reports on a growing rift between National Public Radio and its member stations over NPR's recent decision to cut its radio programming while making investments in its online operations.

The Journal quotes an email written by KCRW General Manager Ruth Seymour, who expresses concerns that the cash-strapped NPR is veering away from its commitment to radio, and hurting member stations in the process:

The most baffling and egregious development is NPR's firing journalists at the same time as it appears to be hiring more online staff. Experienced broadcast journalists -- like John McChesney, Jacki Lydon, Kim Masters -- were let go. Since that time the network has posted at least five online jobs.

Moreover, NPR's lack of interest in producing new programs for radio is alarming. Radio is our core business and our greatest achievement. Now some of the most gifted independent producers tell me that they are bypassing NPR and distributing their programs elsewhere. This is an ominous portent for the future of our network.

Those of us who venerate broadcast journalism and believe that it is our central mission (and I count you among us) are dismayed by these developments.

Faced with a $23 million deficit, NPR recently instituted layoffs and canceled its West Coast shows "Day to Day" and "News and Notes." Member stations worry that other programs could suffer, too, which in turn could cost them when fund-raising season comes around. They also took issue with statement made at an NPR staff meeting that member station could raise funds directly for NPR. From the WSJ:

Some member stations fear NPR budget cuts might hurt the quality of marquee public radio shows "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered," making it harder for local stations to raise funds during those shows, which typically bring in the lion's share of listener donations and corporate underwriting...

Currently, station fund drives raise money for the stations themselves, although some of the money goes toward dues to NPR for its programming.

*Note: I should make clear that I am a producer at KCRW (see bio in right hand column). I have no say or role in station management and learned about this story from reading the Wall Street Journal.