About a month or so before the November election, Mass Transit Now communications director Alex Fryer stopped by Drinking Liberally to help push the Prop. 1 cause, and we got to talking about the state of the campaign and the media coverage of it.
Fryer, a ten-year veteran reporter for the Seattle Times before jumping ship in 2007 to work for Mayor Nickels, complained about the difficulty he was having pushing the campaign’s message to the local media. He lamented the paucity of coverage of Prop. 1’s impact on Eastside communities, yet couldn’t find a single reporter who considered Eastside transportation issues to be their beat.
The Time’s spent years building up its Eastside bureau, Fryer recalled wistfully. And today… nada.
Talk to communications professionals around the region, many of whom are ex-journalists themselves, and you’ll find Fryer’s frustrating experience far from isolated. As our local media universe contracts, the opportunities for media relations contract with it, a particularly troubling trend for the political community, which has watched the size of our state political press corps shrink by as much as two-thirds over recent years.
Imagine you’re a Seattle area legislator or advocacy group attempting to garner a little hometown coverage for a particular bill that would benefit your constituency. It wasn’t so long ago that Seattle’s print media alone had a half-dozen or more reporters and opinion writers based in Olympia during the session, plus a slew of political journalists back at home. But today, if the Times’ Andrew Garber isn’t interested in your story, or he already has his dance card punched, you’re pretty much out of luck.
What’s the solution? Well, I suppose communications staffers could just work harder—be more diligent, more creative, and more relentless—and I know that our state’s various progressive organizations could do a better job coordinating their message. And, I suppose these organizations’ backers could sink more money into their communications efforts to help defray the added expense of going around the traditional media gatekeepers and straight to decision makers and the public at large.
Or, of course, the broader progressive community could come together to fund and support the creation of independent progressive media… you know… like the kinda work we’re doing here at HA, Publicola and the JOA News Co-op. An independent media that not only moves stories into the corporate press and helps to frame the coverage therein, but also, increasingly over time, reaches a larger and larger direct audience. A truly independent media, that’s honest about its bias and fearless in its opinions, and never shy about biting the hands that feed it, if that’s what events dictate.
That’s what folks like Josh and I are attempting to do here with the JOA, but we can’t do it alone and we can’t do it for free. A credible and sustainable independent media is going to have to pay real journalists to do real journalism, and until we can establish a large enough audience and revenue stream, it’s going to require a cash subsidy, pure and simple… a cash subsidy that should be coming from the backers of all those progressive organizations and candidates for whom our success would directly benefit.
Sure, that’s a pretty self-serving analysis, but if there’s a better idea out there of how to address this growing communications crisis, I’ve yet to hear it. And as for those progressive organization communications directors concerned about protecting their own budgets and salaries from hungry vultures like me, well, I’m the least of your worries, for no amount of media relations is going to help you get your message out if there isn’t any media left to relate to.
There’s a familiar cliche about the Chinese character for “crisis” meaning “danger” plus “opportunity,” and while it’s apparently not quite true, it’s still an apt metaphor for our current communications crisis, which does indeed present a great danger to the progressive community while also presenting an opportunity to reshape the local media landscape in our favor. But there’s another cliche that also comes to mind in describing our efforts thus far to muddle through in the face of our local media’s dramatic collapse: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”
Over the coming weeks I not only intend to expand on my thoughts about what we need to be doing differently to confront and exploit our changing media landscape, I also intend to start demonstrating this vision by example. But while it has been tremendously gratifying to hear from folks about how much they appreciate my work, at some point, some of this appreciation needs to translate into substantial financial support for me to have any hope of success.
You could run a 30 second spot on Desperate Housewives or Survivor.
You’ll need fast cars and explosions.
Let’s get the GOP to support independent media by making lying to voters a tort with the measure of damages set at the cost of deprogramming the public from the harmful effects of GOP propaganda. Because progressive media will incur substantial costs for undoing the damage inflicted on society by the Republican noise machine, they are a party in interest with standing to sue.
I think the contraction of the historic media … hallmarked by Fryer, Postman, Mak becoming PR people … has got all of us a bit concerned.
Okay, a lot concerned.
Problem is, I’m not convinced that what’s needed is “truly independent media, that’s honest about its bias and fearless in its opinions.”
Historically, that’s been the op-ed/editorial page.
Who’s going to supply the facts, with as little bias as possible? Or are we consigned to nothing BUT bias, because we’ve given up on the who-what-when-where-why that I was taught in J-school?
Yeah, it’s been over 40 years ago … times change. That was then; this is now. But I’m not keen on all-opinion-all-the-time scenario.
Basically, it’s turning into more of an out-and-out money game. If someone comes across an item they’re interested in on paper (or I guess, a static Web page) they have the opportunity to read it carefully. On radio or TV, it’s all flying by in a stream of consciousness, so if you blink, you’ll miss it. There are two exceptions to that. One is when a broadcaster has a somewhat sensational story and runs it at the end of the newscast, heralding it with “teasers” all the way through to keep people glued to their sets (and absorbing the commercials). The other is when someone’s got the bucks to buy lots and lots of airtime and send lots and lots of mailings to hammer a message into the viewing/listening public’s noggins.
This means that what we hear about local and regional issues is likely to consist more and more of what the likes of Bill Gates, Kemper Freeman, the BIAW and Tim Eyman’s backers want us to hear.
…Or not. I think there’s some evidence that the Rossi camp’s darkening the sky with his “Chrissy’s-a-liar! I’m-a-cool guy! Vote-for-meeeeeee! I promise-not-to-come-in-your-mouth!” chant might have backfired. Instead of deciding whether or not they believed his message, some people just decided they didn’t like him.
@5 Why would anyone like a greasy little real estate salesman who worked for a crooked broker who went to jail for robbing widows and orphans?
I’m using a new version of Internet Explorer and I haven’t been able to post yet. If this does not work I’ll install Firefox.
Well whaddya know.
Great! Now, re: #4, I don’t think Dino Rossi ever actually said “I promise not to come in your mouth.” But it was implied.
Actually, the Chinese ideograph for “crisis” is made up of two ideographs meaning “Bush” and “presidency.”
@3:
Who was giving us the facts when the government sold us the Iraq War? I seem to remember that most of the J-school educated reporters were all sitting around in New York and Washington whispering, “Mr. Bush, tell me where to stand.”
Golly Yellowpup:
That’s because the NY Times and WAPost checked 12 or more other countries who also thought Saddam had WMD. Tariq Azziz Saddam’s #2, thought Saddam had WMD and he lived in Iraq. And I guess you forgot the tapes made.
I guess PupWithYellowStreak forgot the reported bribe too.
Oh well libtards do have short memories…
@10: Puddy with no memory
Guess you forgot the sycophantic reporter with the NYT who got all her scoops from Cheney and the defenzse depart. Guess you also forgot the Pentagon was paying ex-generals to spout their viewpoint.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/
Sometimes it amazes me how consistently WRONG you can be and how consistently you ignore the facts.
FACTS? Puffybutt obviously runs as far from facts as he can. I thought everyone knew that by now? How else could this little bitch justify his existence? He lives in an alternative world. In truth, every single thing he stands for was just REJECTED by America. And the fool is too stupid to realize all he is now is fodder for laughter!
$25 bucks a year, AND, lots of access to lots of sources, NOT per source.
25*200,000,000 adults = 5 BILLION.
ever since AOL, EVERY ‘service’ and idiot fucking web idea on the planet starts their spreadsheets off with 20 or 25 bucks a MONTH.
of course, AOL was ‘successful’ for a short spell doing the 20th century American business model – dump all revenue into marketing your SHIT products OR into upper management pockets.
I’ll kick in $25 a year.
BTW, I do NOT give a flying fuck about the end of the hacks doing ‘political’ reporting in this state – they rarely or NEVER really told you what mattered – whose palms were getting greased – cuz in our ridiculous little backwater of Seattle, if these ‘reporters’ told the truth they wouldn’t be invited to the Tyee Club and the Rainier Club and the WAC. Good riddance sell outs.
rmm.
(p.s. for those who want to refute me, you can bring up the few times every few generations they did a watergate caliber expose … YAWN.)
re 11: You are pretty good with the hate-tinged name-calling and labeling, but surprisingly sensitive when it’s applied to you.
Why is that?
Deb @3,
One can be opinionated and fact based. My view is that since objectivity is humanly impossible, it is more honest to wear your bias on your sleeve, and trust folks to read you in that context, than it is to feign impartiality.
The old journalistic paradigm isn’t dead. But it no longer has a claim to being the only credible journalistic paradigm.
Goldy,
I think your analysis is pretty spot on. We are staring at a news crisis. Unfortunately most of the online political news dispensers are aggregators and are not in the business of reporting in the traditional sense. Once the newspapers are gone we will be in a fix without fresh approaches such as you are trying.
I do think that you and Josh need to think about feedback and commenter rules again. I’m not offended by what I read in the comments here but I am bored with them and that may keep other readers away.
Goldy @ 16:
Josh Feit is not credible. He’s just another little pissant with an agenda. His “reporting” is shallow and superficial, and meant only to reinforce his preconceived conclusions. If that’s the best you can do, good luck to you.
If opinionated journalism is now to be added to the mix, much as political pamphleteering was the norm in the immediate post-Revolutionary period of the late 18th Century, it had damn well better be backed up by some solid reporting and in-depth fact-gathering, and not this single-source one-off glib shit.
If anyone thinks they’ll ever get that from Feit, I have a ski lodge in Kansas to sell them.
Incorrectnottobright@12:
So you are arguing the pentagon was paying foreign generals of foreign countries such as Russia, France, Italy, Spain, iIsrael etc. to mention to news organizations there were WMD in Iraq?
That was your comment above to counter my NY Times comment? What crapola.
I never brought to you “pentagon payments” in any article. You did. And it’s your typical deceptive way to try and control my argument. You constantly do this to say “Look at me, I’m so smart.”
EPIC FAIL! :( You lose loser.
Answer my original postulation. Did foreign countries originally think Iraq had WMDs? Never mind it’s wrong now. Hind sight is always 20-20. Even France and Russia, Iraq’s deliverer of UN Resolution banned weaponry, thought Saddam possessed them. Yet you can’t answer it so you try your standard deflection.
EPIC FAIL! :( You lose loser.
:) That’s my story and I’m sticking to it (:
StillBentOverWithAnObamaShapedVibrator#13:
Please regale us when you brought indisputable facts to this blog. Sure you can trumpet the win November 4. Everyone knows this. When have you brought a reasoned argument here?
N E V E R!
But you do play a great leftist pinhead fool for all to see.
:) That’s my story and I’m sticking to it (:
Goldy @16: Agreed … sort of. The old journalism paradigm may not be dead, but it sure isn’t making money …
And without some filthy lucre, how in hell is anyone supposed to be able to report or even communicate? Every one has to pay the rent and utilities (even in your reportedly quite chilly digs).
I don’t know where this is going to end up, but I’m pretty sure no one else knows, either.
Again Puddybutt is obsessed with sticky things. Poor little cunt has nothing left but giving $5 BJs to people behind the bowling alley in Port Orchard.
More incorrectnottobright swill he continues to spew without facts to back them up…
Robert Novak met with Richard Armitage July 8, 2003. “Armitage said, ‘you know his wife works at the CIA, and she suggested that he be sent to Niger.’ ‘His wife works for the CIA?’ I asked. ‘Yeah, in counterproliferation,’ ” said Armitage. After mentioning her first name, “Valerie,” Novak says that Armitage even joked, “that’s real Evans and Novak, isn’t it.” Novak published his information.
Ms. Miller met with Mr. Libby on July 8, 2003. Ms. Miller never wrote an article about Valerie Plame.
:) That’s my story and I’m sticking to it (:
Moron@22: That’s the best you can do? Port Orchard Bowling Alleys?
You proved my point in post#20. AGAIN!
The old lady media has another story on the Donkey gift that keeps on giving…
I think they are trying ot keep their media relations high.
What does Obama have to say?
Goldy @ 16:
And here’s another thing. If your “new journalism” doesn’t start policing its comment sections and running these trolls the hell on out of here, it has no future.
Goldy, you are absolutely right that the focus needs to be on institution building, and there isn’t one best way to do it.
For example, I’d like to see the state buy the P-I and place it under the auspices of a not-for-profit trust. The key here is creating a truly independent organization that can’t be jacked around by politicians like NPR. Essentially the state would pay for the purchase and reasonable start-up costs through the sale of state bonds. The trust would pay those back over time via presumably profitable operations.
Take a look at how the St. Petersburg Times operates. It is owned by the nonprofit Poynter Institute, which does some great training programs (within the MSM paradigm).
Another model would be a network of community-based, professionally run web sites that share regional and state coverage. Each entity would also develop areas of unique expertise that can be shared with the network. So, for example, the Olympia site would often take the lead on legislative coverage — and also help other sites with logistics as needed.
All of this requires much greater expertise in organization building than we’ve historically seen among the alternative press here in Washington. We need to get good at such skills as fundraising, organizational design, budgeting, etc. Not nearly as sexy as writing the next great expose, but the foundation for any sustainable alternative effort.
To the degree you are focusing there, good for you. To the degree that you aren’t, it’s hard for us older timers to get excited about another bus that’s inevitably going to tip over.
Goldy @16:
My point above @9 is that the fact-based approach isn’t always so fact-based and that “bias” or opinion isn’t always the least thing that can corrupt journalism.
“Bias” is a crude and clumsy tool in media criticism (and don’t get me started on “information”!), so I think we need better terms with which to evaluate journalism.
Goldy, did you watch Howard Kurtz on CNN’s Reliable Sources?
He played this clip on the show…
Then Howard said: ” Wasn’t he really saying, ‘If you like Barack Obama, this is the network to watch?'”
Later Howard said: “Okay, well then I just want to be clear about it, because MSNBC denies that it has moved to the left, and I think the evidence is pretty strong.” Yes PMSNBC is very opinionated and very lefty and even CNN sees it.
So the bias is so strong CNN had to admit it. Well, at least Howard admits PMSNBC is now the “Obama Network”. Good for them for a change to admit libtard MSM bias.
I don’t mind news bias as long as they admit to it. We see it every time a Donkey politician is found with his hand in the kooky jar. They conveniently forget to identify the Donkey culprit’s party affiliation where if it’s a Republican it’s usually in the first paragraph, usually in the opening sentence.
@19: did you even read the link – how off base can you be?
hahahahaha.
the link is about the Pentagon paying retired US military to shill for Bush and the Iraq war. Did you NOT hear about this?
How clueless are you?
That directly refutes your so-called liberal bias crap. It also points out the cozy relationship between the media and the Bush admisitration. The other link details how friendly reporters like Judith Miller of the NYT and Novak carried their water.
And I did not even go into Faux News much – except they were paying the retired generals as spokespeople just as the Pentagon was also paying them to be reliable Bush mouthpieces. Independent media, indeed.
Incorrectnottobright: Of course I didn’t read the link. It had no bearing on my argument. It refuted nothing about libtard MSM bias. It refuted nothing I postulated on 12+ foreign intelligence services including Saddam’s biggest bestus buds France and Russia thinking he possessed WMD. You are a moronic fool. Just can’t figger it out.
EPIC FAIL :(!
I was discussing foreign countries and their original WMD view which you conveniently forget with your worthless arguments. You on the other hand tried to change the argument and…
EPIC FAIL :(!
You fool. Novak is a conservative reporter. Did you miss the link I posted from DUmmys regarding their comments over Novak’s brain tumor? The sickness of the progressive leftist pinhead blog commenter. What a moron you are.
Regarding your Judith Miller link… she never published an article on her findings. So Scooter Libby’s comments never saw print, while Donkey loving retard Richard Armitage told Novak and he told Novak much more than he should have.
EPIC FAIL :(!
Where did I get my information from? All over you idiot!
EPIC FAIL :(!
:) That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. (:
ivan @18,
If you don’t like Josh, there are plenty of other reporters out there who would love to stay in the profession in exchange for a decent white collar wage. The problem is, paying them.
That’s essentially the issue that I think needs to be immediately addressed. Instead of progressive organizations paying Alex Fryer to communicate with reporters on their behalf, perhaps they should be paying Alex Fryer to do actual reporting?
As for the comment threads… changes are coming.
Deb @21,
That’s my point. We need to invest money now into paying for reporters, and give independent media the time to find its business model.
@33 “changes are coming”
Uh-oh.
Josh Feit is a spent force, all used up. His wad is shot. He’s like a porn star who has been in the business too long.
If Horses Ass is an objective online news source, and not a partisan political blog, as Goldy claims, then why does he remain silent on so many stories when a Democrat is cast in a negative light?