For a publication that redefined newspaper design and practically goaded newsrooms out of their black-and-white slumber, it's disturbing, to say the least, to see what USA Today.com looks like nowadays, or more specifically, doesn't look like.
All of its section fronts, especially the home page, reek of wasted opportunity. There are headlines running down the right side and not much else. Not only that, they are presented without rhyme or reason. On Saturday, right underneath word that former NYC Police Commisioner Bernie Kerik rejected a plea deal for various and sundry felonies, was word that swimmer Michael Phelps notched yet another gold medal at the world championships.
Further down were items about Serena Williams winning another tournament, and circus clown Bello pleading for the return of his mini-bike. Both were followed by at least two inches of white space. Gannett may be up to its penny-pinching, but is there no one around to throw in a blurb?
To find out virtually anything about any story on the home page, you would have to click on a headline, which then makes the site a must-avoid instead of a must-read for anyone with limited time or short attention span. Meaning, it's doing exactly the opposite of what it's intended to do.
USA Today became the master of effectively packaging news -- attacking the sanctity of stories that jumped to another page and offering us "news you can use" in effective, attractive packages. Sometimes, the journalism, indeed the very substance of the product fell victim to the style.
But those problems have long since been addressed, and gone are the days when you'd go bonkers when your hotel gift shop didn't stock The Wall Street Journal or New York Times, and you had to settle for the paper left on your doorknob.
Now its Web site must play catch-up in a bad way.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Ben Schott Gets Bitch-Slapped By New York Times Book Review
Almanac Guru Denies Plagiarism, Paper Kind Of, Sort Of, Begs To Differ
You can fool all of the editors some of the time, but you can't fool all of the readers.
At least that's what appears to have happened to publishing darling Ben Schott, he of the "Schott's Almanac" and "Schott's Original Miscellany," which have sold millions of copies worldwide.
An editor's note in yesterday's New York Times Book Review noted how several readers had pointed out "similarities" in an essay he wrote for the March 4 Book Review about mistreating books.
Several of the super-literate out there noticed thematic "similarities" to an essay contained in Anne Fadiman's "Ex Libris: Confessions of a Common Reader."
Granted, it wasn't a word-for-word lift, but the opening paragraph of Schott's piece has an eerie familiarity if you know Fadiman's work.
Schott denied he had ever read Fadiman, whose essay was also brought to his attention by a Book Review reader. He blames the similarity on the "coincidental result of the narrowness of the topic."
Talk about a euphemism.
True or not, it was enough to give Book Review editors the heebie-jeebies.
"Had editors been aware of Fadiman's essay, the Book Review would not have published Schott's."
Which presumably means that Schott, who has been doing some freelance work at the Times, is now able to consider assignments from other publications.
You can fool all of the editors some of the time, but you can't fool all of the readers.
At least that's what appears to have happened to publishing darling Ben Schott, he of the "Schott's Almanac" and "Schott's Original Miscellany," which have sold millions of copies worldwide.
An editor's note in yesterday's New York Times Book Review noted how several readers had pointed out "similarities" in an essay he wrote for the March 4 Book Review about mistreating books.
Several of the super-literate out there noticed thematic "similarities" to an essay contained in Anne Fadiman's "Ex Libris: Confessions of a Common Reader."
Granted, it wasn't a word-for-word lift, but the opening paragraph of Schott's piece has an eerie familiarity if you know Fadiman's work.
Schott denied he had ever read Fadiman, whose essay was also brought to his attention by a Book Review reader. He blames the similarity on the "coincidental result of the narrowness of the topic."
Talk about a euphemism.
True or not, it was enough to give Book Review editors the heebie-jeebies.
"Had editors been aware of Fadiman's essay, the Book Review would not have published Schott's."
Which presumably means that Schott, who has been doing some freelance work at the Times, is now able to consider assignments from other publications.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
CNN Caught Reporting John Edwards Scoop That Wasn't
The competition among the cable newsers sometimes has a casualty: accurate reporting.
Just before the John Edwards news conference about the recurrence of his wife Elizabeth's breast cancer, CNN ran a headline on the network, its Web site and headline service that appears on Captivate.com that he was suspending his campaign while she was treated.
Which would have been a great thing to be in front on were it not for the fact that Edwards told the nation that just the opposite was happening. That meant CNN had to shuck and jive in its online version.
"The campaign goes on," John Edwards said at a news conference outside the couple's home, contradicting earlier media reports to the contrary.
Those reports, of course, included CNN, though you wouldn't know that from reading that dispatch.
Of course, it was easy to assume Edwards would be stepping aside given that it was unlikely he'd hold a news conference just to let everyone know his wife was all right. And he had canceled a campaign appearance yesterday in Iowa.
As the Des Moines Register notes: "Many political observers speculated this morning that John Edwards would at least suspend the campaign, but those reports proved incorrect."
Ah, speculation. Assumption. Guesswork. None of which have any place in journalism.
No matter how intense the 24-hour news cycle, speculation can't take the place of accurate reporting. Even if it was relying on outside sources, CNN should have used its own formidable resources to first verify the news. You need to get it right before you get it first.
Just before the John Edwards news conference about the recurrence of his wife Elizabeth's breast cancer, CNN ran a headline on the network, its Web site and headline service that appears on Captivate.com that he was suspending his campaign while she was treated.
Which would have been a great thing to be in front on were it not for the fact that Edwards told the nation that just the opposite was happening. That meant CNN had to shuck and jive in its online version.
"The campaign goes on," John Edwards said at a news conference outside the couple's home, contradicting earlier media reports to the contrary.
Those reports, of course, included CNN, though you wouldn't know that from reading that dispatch.
Of course, it was easy to assume Edwards would be stepping aside given that it was unlikely he'd hold a news conference just to let everyone know his wife was all right. And he had canceled a campaign appearance yesterday in Iowa.
As the Des Moines Register notes: "Many political observers speculated this morning that John Edwards would at least suspend the campaign, but those reports proved incorrect."
Ah, speculation. Assumption. Guesswork. None of which have any place in journalism.
No matter how intense the 24-hour news cycle, speculation can't take the place of accurate reporting. Even if it was relying on outside sources, CNN should have used its own formidable resources to first verify the news. You need to get it right before you get it first.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Honolulu Star-Bulletin Dumbs Down Its Pages; Could Be A Dumb Idea
Or, It Could Be The Only Way To Get People To Read Something Besides the Ads and TV Listings. Sigh.
Stop scolding. Yes, know full well newspapers are in a cage match with the inexorable migration of their readers to the web.
The Star-Bulletin, the scrappy afternoon (yes, a few still exist) paper in Honolulu (lucky stiffs) has taken a scythe to the conventional wisdom about newspaper layout, according to Mark Fitzgerald in Editor & Publisher.
Now the S-B's front page and section fronts are full of up to 20 short items that can be viewed as either blurbs on their own or as refers to the full story inside a section. It's the paper equivalent of a click-through, which editor Frank Bridgewater makes no apologies about.
"We know the overwhelming number of readers don't like jumps, but for some reason the newspaper industry has continued to force jumps on people,” Bridgewater told E&P. “The older readers accept it a little bit, or I should say, I think they tolerate it. But the younger the reader, the more they hate jumps.”
Bridgewater may be bending to reality, having spent more time than he cares to in the Short Attention Span Theatre. But he then risks the danger of dumbing down the product, making it superficial to the point of being irrelevant, especially for the "older readers" (definition, please?) who still make up the lion's share of paid circulation.
Yes, that's the core of the problem in newspaperdom, not enough eyeballs under 40 plunking down coin for the product. But until you figure out a way to snare that crowd, don't alienate the core.
My concern is if you give people a reason just to read the section fronts, they won't go further afield, reducing the perception of the S-B as a must-read.
It reminds me of my time in network radio news, where you knew that after the commercial break on the hourly newscast, a lot of stations would dump out and not take the back minute. The consequence was the compulsion to then cram more stories into the front part of the newscast, which meant more breathless and shorter shrift for items that begged for more context and explanation.
The Star-Bulletin, which faced extinction just a few years ago, can't afford to go down that path. It trails the morning Honolulu Advertiser in circulation 143,020 to 64,305. Faced with that, it'll likely find that less does not translate into more.
Stop scolding. Yes, know full well newspapers are in a cage match with the inexorable migration of their readers to the web.
The Star-Bulletin, the scrappy afternoon (yes, a few still exist) paper in Honolulu (lucky stiffs) has taken a scythe to the conventional wisdom about newspaper layout, according to Mark Fitzgerald in Editor & Publisher.
Now the S-B's front page and section fronts are full of up to 20 short items that can be viewed as either blurbs on their own or as refers to the full story inside a section. It's the paper equivalent of a click-through, which editor Frank Bridgewater makes no apologies about.
"We know the overwhelming number of readers don't like jumps, but for some reason the newspaper industry has continued to force jumps on people,” Bridgewater told E&P. “The older readers accept it a little bit, or I should say, I think they tolerate it. But the younger the reader, the more they hate jumps.”
Bridgewater may be bending to reality, having spent more time than he cares to in the Short Attention Span Theatre. But he then risks the danger of dumbing down the product, making it superficial to the point of being irrelevant, especially for the "older readers" (definition, please?) who still make up the lion's share of paid circulation.
Yes, that's the core of the problem in newspaperdom, not enough eyeballs under 40 plunking down coin for the product. But until you figure out a way to snare that crowd, don't alienate the core.
My concern is if you give people a reason just to read the section fronts, they won't go further afield, reducing the perception of the S-B as a must-read.
It reminds me of my time in network radio news, where you knew that after the commercial break on the hourly newscast, a lot of stations would dump out and not take the back minute. The consequence was the compulsion to then cram more stories into the front part of the newscast, which meant more breathless and shorter shrift for items that begged for more context and explanation.
The Star-Bulletin, which faced extinction just a few years ago, can't afford to go down that path. It trails the morning Honolulu Advertiser in circulation 143,020 to 64,305. Faced with that, it'll likely find that less does not translate into more.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Catch My Disease on the 4 Train: Sharon Moalem Likes Himself Very Much. Pregnant Women? Not Very Much
"Survival Of The Sickest" Author Takes His Own Publicity Tour on the Subway
The wife and I caught last Thursday's "Daily Show," where the guest was Sharon Moalem, who has written "Survival of the Sickest," a book whose cover proclaims him as a "medical maverick" who's here to tell us "why we need disease."
Jon Stewart took the bait. We haven't taken that leap, at least not yet. But maybe we'll find the time to read his treatise about how lots of diseases have evolutionary virtues. Turns out some genetic traits that are harmful today actually helped ancestors survive and thrive. OK, then.
For the more scientifically inclined among us, the book has received its share of reviews and avid readers, not least among them, Moalem himself.
My wife spotted on Tuesday someone on the uptown Lexington Avenue express reading "Survival of the Sickest." She then realized it was Moalem caught up in his own book.
When the train reached 14th Street, Moalem grabbed a seat to continue his self-love reverie, beating out my six-months-pregnant wife, who was forced to hover nearby. Which means he has something in common with just about every other guy who rides the 4 and 5 trains.
Maybe Moalem's next book can be about chivalry. No time like the present to start his research.
Monday, March 12, 2007
"24' Can't Tell Time -- But So What Else Is New?
The Numbers Don't Add Up As CTU Takes On Russian Bad Guys
A cracklin' good "24" tonight, much to Gregory Itzin's (right) chagrin as we got to watch ex-Prez Charles Logan flatlining at the end.
This was a rare Jack Lite episode, as much of the hour was spent with Logan trying to get ex-wife Martha -- she in the expensive loony bin with former Secret Service demigod-turned-paramour Aaron watching over her -- to call her dear friend Anya, the wife of Russian President Subarov.
Logan wanted Anya to convince her husband to tell super-baddie Markov at the consulate in L.A. to surrender before CTU stormed the gates and started WWIII.
Sounds simple enough, right? Only thing: It would have been pushing 4 in the morning in Russia. Yet, we're told Subarov is giving a speech in Omsk? To whom, the night shift at the city morgue?
Anywhoo, as they say in Omsk, it appears the Subarovs are night owls. Anya picks up the phone. She's wide awake and dressed rather nicely. Her peripatetic husband is later seen by her side, conveniently dressed in a suit and tie, because you never know when a diplomatic incident is going to break out.
Of course, all that time-zone silliness came just before Martha stabbed Logan, which left her quite pleased with herself. Yet, somehow she managed to sound lucid immediately afterwards during her chick chat with Anya.
Which is the great thing about "24." You roll your eyes over what absurd plot device they've managed to cook up. But you keep coming back. How could you not? The world may blow up any second now.
P.S. Jury still out on Ricky Schroeder. Might be some high-priced window dressing, or he could be a keeper. Gotta have a real kick-ass guy running Field Ops, after all. And hope they got some extra dough in the set-design budget what with Powers Boothe angrily chewing through all that scenery.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Bobby Brown Decides He Doesn't Want To Be a Model Citizen After All, Not To Mention a Radio Host
Hot 99.5 Tried to Get Deadbeat Dad Out of Jail and In the Studio
So, Washington radio station Hot 99.5 hoped to goose its morning ratings by having Bobby Brown on for a week to talk about what a swell, misunderstood guy he really was. This, after the station bailed him out of a Massachusetts jail for not paying child support.
It was supposed to be a week of good-natured razzing, regret and rumination, not to mention unpredictable, as anyone who saw the train wreck that was his reality show "Being Bobby Brown" can attest.
Then, Brown apparently came down with a bad case of cold feet after the cash found its way toward his camp (see below item). Brown's people are trying to spin this sucka, saying the station didn't front his bail money and that he never agreed to come on the air. Hot 99.5 begs to differ and has the proof.
Oops. Nothing like an email to ruin a good story.
So, Washington radio station Hot 99.5 hoped to goose its morning ratings by having Bobby Brown on for a week to talk about what a swell, misunderstood guy he really was. This, after the station bailed him out of a Massachusetts jail for not paying child support.
It was supposed to be a week of good-natured razzing, regret and rumination, not to mention unpredictable, as anyone who saw the train wreck that was his reality show "Being Bobby Brown" can attest.
Then, Brown apparently came down with a bad case of cold feet after the cash found its way toward his camp (see below item). Brown's people are trying to spin this sucka, saying the station didn't front his bail money and that he never agreed to come on the air. Hot 99.5 begs to differ and has the proof.
Oops. Nothing like an email to ruin a good story.
Friday, March 02, 2007
It's His Prerogative: Bobby Brown May Bail On Radio Station That Bailed Him Out
Clear Channel Station in D.C. Could Be on Hook for Washed-Up Pop Star's Child Support Tab and Nothing In Return
It sounded good, at least on paper. Bobby Brown, has-been singer, estranged husband of Whitney Houston, and reality show head case, was in jail for not ponying up child-support bucks.
So, Washington radio station Hot 99.5 had a swell idea. Bail out Brown by paying the $19,150 Brown owed in Massachusetts, then have him be an "employee" of the station, yuck it up for a week with morning host Kane and sort of be a role model/punching bag.
Brown certainly appeared game enough. Rehabilitating yourself on the air sure beats a cell. Except now he may be having second thoughts, all the more inconvenient for Hot 99.5, as they've already laid out the cash.
Brown told Kane on the air this morning that he really didn't want to dwell on his legal troubles and said he was the victim of lies spread in the media. Uh-oh.
After Kane had a few WTF moments as it appeared Brown was trying to weasel out of his commitment, Brown hung up, leaving the radio station and everyone else without a clue as to what will happen next.
Which has been Brown's problem all along, as Hot 99.5 is learning the hard way.
Washington Times' Managing Editor Makes a Day in the Newsroom Interesting -- And Dangerous
A Full Moon Follows Fran Coombs As He Belittles, Berates and Blows Up
No one ever accused journalists, especially managing editors of distant second-place papers, of being a stable lot. Proof of that comes via Wonkette from George Archibald, a faaaaar right-wing blogger who toiled for many years with like-minded brethren at the Washington Times.
Archibald, via newsroom moles, recounts recent run-ins Times managing editor Fran Coombs has had with staff members. It's a real Moonapalooza of a day when he's around.
To wit, this purported exchange with one reporter:
Coombs: "I heard you were pissing on Julia Duin's series and bad-mouthing the Washington Times, like you always do."
Carter: "Who told you that? I wasn't and I didn't."
Coombs: "I heard you were, like you always do, and if I catch you, your ass will be grass."
Carter: "Are you going to punch me?"
Coombs: "No, You'd like that wouldn't you. But that is not going to happen. I'll fucking fire your ass. I’m going to fucking take your ass out."
Not exactly a wet dream for those in H.R. But great stuff for the rest of us who have the good fortune of not working at the Times.
No one ever accused journalists, especially managing editors of distant second-place papers, of being a stable lot. Proof of that comes via Wonkette from George Archibald, a faaaaar right-wing blogger who toiled for many years with like-minded brethren at the Washington Times.
Archibald, via newsroom moles, recounts recent run-ins Times managing editor Fran Coombs has had with staff members. It's a real Moonapalooza of a day when he's around.
To wit, this purported exchange with one reporter:
Coombs: "I heard you were pissing on Julia Duin's series and bad-mouthing the Washington Times, like you always do."
Carter: "Who told you that? I wasn't and I didn't."
Coombs: "I heard you were, like you always do, and if I catch you, your ass will be grass."
Carter: "Are you going to punch me?"
Coombs: "No, You'd like that wouldn't you. But that is not going to happen. I'll fucking fire your ass. I’m going to fucking take your ass out."
Not exactly a wet dream for those in H.R. But great stuff for the rest of us who have the good fortune of not working at the Times.
For A Change, Hockey Is Again Recognized As A Sport in The New York Times
Three Bylined NHL Articles in One Day Despite No Reports of Pigs Sprouting Wings
As we've documented in the past, The New York Times has, without shame or regret, abandoned most of its hockey coverage. The Rangers are the only team that has a regular beat reporter, although Lynn Zinser rarely goes on the road with the team.
As for the Islanders and Devils, who between them have won seven Stanley Cups over the last 30 years, they mostly exist in two paragraph NHL roundups courtesy of the A.P.
So, it was quite a shock this morning to see last night's Islanders game covered by John Branch instead of the wire. True, it was to herald the Islanders debut of semi-superstar Ryan Smyth (above), acquired Tuesday from the Edmonton Oilers, but still, you'd never take for granted that the Times would show up. Because they might not again.
Today's edition also had a piece from freelancer Ray Glier on the trials and tribulations of the Atlanta Thrashers. Nice to see. However, lest you wonder what such a piece would be doing in a New York paper, then two minutes in the penalty box for you!
Remember, as Times execs always will, Lady Gray is a national paper. Yes, more people read the Times outside the metropolitan area than in. The problem is the sports department seems a little too proud of that fact, which is why coverage of local teams continues to suffer.
Tribune Deal Lets Gannett Extend Its Mediocrity To All Of New York's Northern Suburbs
Stamford Advocate and Greenwich Time Victims of Chicagoans Trying To Shed Properties and Free Up Cash
The Washington Post has news of the latest media fire sale, with Tribune selling the Stamford Advocate and its diminutive sister, the Greenwich Time for a relatively paltry $65 million. That's a healthy reflection of the sickly state of newspaperdom when two properties that cover some of the wealthiest towns in the U.S. are unloaded like that.
However, it's nothing new when you look at deals like McClatchy selling the Star-Tribune in Minneapolis last year for $530 million, even though it had paid $1.2 billion just eight years earlier. Yeah, yeah, the company got $160 million in tax benefits. But still.
What will readers in Connecticut get when Gannett takes over. Not a hell of a lot, as subscribers of The Journal-News [a one-time employer of mine in the 1980s] in the neighboring New York counties of Westchester, Rockland and Putnam can attest.
Not that the Advocate or Time are much better thanks to persistent penny-pinching by Tribune. But still.
Gannett has been a persistent underachiever with The Journal-News, consistently fumbling attempts to cover its diverse region in anything but a piecemeal way. Its business coverage -- mirroring the cutbacks at many other papers -- is anemic, as are its feature sections. To its credit, it does do a fine job covering high school and local college sports.
Pro baseball and football teams have beat writers who do go on the road. That's not the case with the Knicks and Rangers, though, who mostly get staff bylines only when they're at Madison Square Garden. Currently, the Connecticut papers get local team coverage from the still-strong sports department at Newsday. Which now means expect greater use of AP copy.
Gannett's all about efficiencies, bottom lines and squeezing enough to hear their reporters and editors squeal like pigs. The journalism comes second. So, good luck Advocate/Time. You've been warned.
The Washington Post has news of the latest media fire sale, with Tribune selling the Stamford Advocate and its diminutive sister, the Greenwich Time for a relatively paltry $65 million. That's a healthy reflection of the sickly state of newspaperdom when two properties that cover some of the wealthiest towns in the U.S. are unloaded like that.
However, it's nothing new when you look at deals like McClatchy selling the Star-Tribune in Minneapolis last year for $530 million, even though it had paid $1.2 billion just eight years earlier. Yeah, yeah, the company got $160 million in tax benefits. But still.
What will readers in Connecticut get when Gannett takes over. Not a hell of a lot, as subscribers of The Journal-News [a one-time employer of mine in the 1980s] in the neighboring New York counties of Westchester, Rockland and Putnam can attest.
Not that the Advocate or Time are much better thanks to persistent penny-pinching by Tribune. But still.
Gannett has been a persistent underachiever with The Journal-News, consistently fumbling attempts to cover its diverse region in anything but a piecemeal way. Its business coverage -- mirroring the cutbacks at many other papers -- is anemic, as are its feature sections. To its credit, it does do a fine job covering high school and local college sports.
Pro baseball and football teams have beat writers who do go on the road. That's not the case with the Knicks and Rangers, though, who mostly get staff bylines only when they're at Madison Square Garden. Currently, the Connecticut papers get local team coverage from the still-strong sports department at Newsday. Which now means expect greater use of AP copy.
Gannett's all about efficiencies, bottom lines and squeezing enough to hear their reporters and editors squeal like pigs. The journalism comes second. So, good luck Advocate/Time. You've been warned.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Brian Williams Wants Off The Anna-Nicole Spears Train, But One Journo Says Keep Rolling
The St. Petersburg Times' Eric Deggans Begs to Differ on Celebrity Blackout
You can't fault Brian Williams for trying to inject some gravitas into "NBC Nightly News" recently by proclaiming his 22-minute slice of the airwaves would be devoid of the latest odious nuggets about Anna Nicole-Smith's repose and our favorite bald pop tart imploding and re-imploding before TMZ.com staffers could hit the send button.
Yet, Eric Deggans at the St. Petersburg Times cries foul over Williams wanting to cover the actual news of the day. Why?
Because there is real news embedded in these ongoing soap operas. And a media-weary public needs quality journalists like Williams to pull substance out of these tawdry messes.
Again, I ask, why? Or, why Williams?
Maybe the better question is why not the cable newsers, who have done anything and everything to ensure their studios will need a good fumigating after these stories have finally ebbed? Surely in the zeal to report and re-report the same pablum, they could have stepped back, exhaled and mustered up a package putting these messes in context.
No reason for Williams, Couric or Gibson to muddy up their precious moments with these pathetic sagas unless actual news emerges. Imagine that.
You can't fault Brian Williams for trying to inject some gravitas into "NBC Nightly News" recently by proclaiming his 22-minute slice of the airwaves would be devoid of the latest odious nuggets about Anna Nicole-Smith's repose and our favorite bald pop tart imploding and re-imploding before TMZ.com staffers could hit the send button.
Yet, Eric Deggans at the St. Petersburg Times cries foul over Williams wanting to cover the actual news of the day. Why?
Because there is real news embedded in these ongoing soap operas. And a media-weary public needs quality journalists like Williams to pull substance out of these tawdry messes.
Again, I ask, why? Or, why Williams?
Maybe the better question is why not the cable newsers, who have done anything and everything to ensure their studios will need a good fumigating after these stories have finally ebbed? Surely in the zeal to report and re-report the same pablum, they could have stepped back, exhaled and mustered up a package putting these messes in context.
No reason for Williams, Couric or Gibson to muddy up their precious moments with these pathetic sagas unless actual news emerges. Imagine that.
Monday, February 26, 2007
New York Times Brings The War Home As It Follows Dustin Kirby On Road to Recovery
Medic Whose Bravado Was Captured in Brilliant Profile By C.J. Chivers Now Tends To His Own Wounds; a Happy Ending Of Sorts
His official title is Petty Officer Third Class, but everyone simply called Dustin Kirby "Doc." He was a medic assigned to the Second Mobile Assault Platoon of Weapons Company, Second Battalion, Eighth Marines, which meant too often he was attending to wounds inflicted by snipers.
Kirby's balance of triage, fragile emotions, outrage and fear were expertly captured in a Nov. 2 article by C.J. Chivers in The New York Times. Sadly, but not tragically, Chivers had to report on Dec. 29 about Kirby being wounded badly by another sniper's bullet.
As is not often the case, though, Chivers had some good news to report yesterday about Kirby's recovery which is gradual, but is expected to be complete after another series of operations this year.
A more uncertain path is being traveled by Marine Lance Cpl. Colin Smith, a friend of Kirby. The first article described how Kirby had attended to Smith on the battlefield after a bullet tore through his skull and destroyed the top frontal lobes of his brain.
Smith is said by his family to be in good spirits, though his progress is uncertain.
Sometimes as a reporter you start out telling a story and you have no idea how it will end. Fortunately, this is one still being written. And with Chivers' brilliant and sensitive reportage, it will be well worth reading.
UPDATE 11:00 A.M./2/26: Glad to see others felt the same way about Chivers, who the American Society of Newspaper Editors awarded its top prize for deadline reporting. The winning entries in all categories show that, despite increasingly daunting odds, there are still plenty of newspaper reporters fighting the good fight in a medium that's diminished but just as indispensable as it ever was.
His official title is Petty Officer Third Class, but everyone simply called Dustin Kirby "Doc." He was a medic assigned to the Second Mobile Assault Platoon of Weapons Company, Second Battalion, Eighth Marines, which meant too often he was attending to wounds inflicted by snipers.
Kirby's balance of triage, fragile emotions, outrage and fear were expertly captured in a Nov. 2 article by C.J. Chivers in The New York Times. Sadly, but not tragically, Chivers had to report on Dec. 29 about Kirby being wounded badly by another sniper's bullet.
As is not often the case, though, Chivers had some good news to report yesterday about Kirby's recovery which is gradual, but is expected to be complete after another series of operations this year.
A more uncertain path is being traveled by Marine Lance Cpl. Colin Smith, a friend of Kirby. The first article described how Kirby had attended to Smith on the battlefield after a bullet tore through his skull and destroyed the top frontal lobes of his brain.
Smith is said by his family to be in good spirits, though his progress is uncertain.
Sometimes as a reporter you start out telling a story and you have no idea how it will end. Fortunately, this is one still being written. And with Chivers' brilliant and sensitive reportage, it will be well worth reading.
UPDATE 11:00 A.M./2/26: Glad to see others felt the same way about Chivers, who the American Society of Newspaper Editors awarded its top prize for deadline reporting. The winning entries in all categories show that, despite increasingly daunting odds, there are still plenty of newspaper reporters fighting the good fight in a medium that's diminished but just as indispensable as it ever was.
Friday, February 23, 2007
When Restaurants Attack: More Eateries Want To Fry Critics Who Burned Them With Tepid Reviews
Frank Bruni Gets Some Company As Restaurant Enemy Number One
Much was written this week about restaurant mogul Jeffrey Chodorow taking out a full-page ad to rebut the negative review from New York Times restaurant critic Frank Bruni of Kobe Club, Chodorow's newest Big Apple eatery.
Reactions ranged from "atta-boy Jeff" to "he's even more insane than we thought."
To be sure, Bruni was not alone in savaging the steakhouse, pricey even by the mind-boggling expense account tabs typical of a New York meat emporium. Adam Platt of New York magazine and the New York Post's Steve Cuozzo also took Kobe Club to the woodshed.
But Chodorow spent at least 80 grand on the ad to go after Bruni, not the other doomsayers. Now, a bad review from Bruni (who savaged Kobe Club with a piddling no-star, Satisfactory rating) isn't necessarily fatal to a restaurant, unlike a thumbs-down from theater critic Ben Brantley. Still, it doesn't help, even if Chodorow threw out the PR playbook and made his displeasure so public.
In the rebuttal, Chodorow didn't help his case by saying Bruni was entitled to his opinion except when he said bad things about his restaurants.
I open restaurants for people, not critics. Kobe Club, with its 2000 samurai swords dangling blade-down, and its over-the-top luxe menu is not for everyone, but do we really need another traditional steakhouse in New York City?
And if he opens restaurants for people, then why does he care so much about the critics?
Still, Chodorow really is a people person. Honest.
I have been too successful and battle-hardened to be affected by this, but my restaurant staff,
who are some of the nicest, most hard-working people I have ever worked with are affected, and they deserve an apology.
So there.
At least Chodorow is confining his vitriol to expensive rebuttals and starting a blog so he can say nice things about restaurants and food. A Philadelphia-area restaurant wants to exact revenge in the courts for a review that took up all of three sentences.
Indeed, a little can say a lot. In this case, it's the steakhouse (another one? Geez!) Chops in Bala Cynwyd hot and bothered by Philadelphia Inquirer restaurant critic Craig LaBan's labeling of a strip steak "miserably tough and fatty." Only thing: the restaurant alleges LaBan had a steak sandwich, not an actual steak.
The restaurant says LaBan apologized on the phone, but refused to make a correction in print. So, it's off to court we go, or at least to the lawyers' offices, which is bound to leave a bad taste in everybody's mouths.
Much was written this week about restaurant mogul Jeffrey Chodorow taking out a full-page ad to rebut the negative review from New York Times restaurant critic Frank Bruni of Kobe Club, Chodorow's newest Big Apple eatery.
Reactions ranged from "atta-boy Jeff" to "he's even more insane than we thought."
To be sure, Bruni was not alone in savaging the steakhouse, pricey even by the mind-boggling expense account tabs typical of a New York meat emporium. Adam Platt of New York magazine and the New York Post's Steve Cuozzo also took Kobe Club to the woodshed.
But Chodorow spent at least 80 grand on the ad to go after Bruni, not the other doomsayers. Now, a bad review from Bruni (who savaged Kobe Club with a piddling no-star, Satisfactory rating) isn't necessarily fatal to a restaurant, unlike a thumbs-down from theater critic Ben Brantley. Still, it doesn't help, even if Chodorow threw out the PR playbook and made his displeasure so public.
In the rebuttal, Chodorow didn't help his case by saying Bruni was entitled to his opinion except when he said bad things about his restaurants.
I open restaurants for people, not critics. Kobe Club, with its 2000 samurai swords dangling blade-down, and its over-the-top luxe menu is not for everyone, but do we really need another traditional steakhouse in New York City?
And if he opens restaurants for people, then why does he care so much about the critics?
Still, Chodorow really is a people person. Honest.
I have been too successful and battle-hardened to be affected by this, but my restaurant staff,
who are some of the nicest, most hard-working people I have ever worked with are affected, and they deserve an apology.
So there.
At least Chodorow is confining his vitriol to expensive rebuttals and starting a blog so he can say nice things about restaurants and food. A Philadelphia-area restaurant wants to exact revenge in the courts for a review that took up all of three sentences.
Indeed, a little can say a lot. In this case, it's the steakhouse (another one? Geez!) Chops in Bala Cynwyd hot and bothered by Philadelphia Inquirer restaurant critic Craig LaBan's labeling of a strip steak "miserably tough and fatty." Only thing: the restaurant alleges LaBan had a steak sandwich, not an actual steak.
The restaurant says LaBan apologized on the phone, but refused to make a correction in print. So, it's off to court we go, or at least to the lawyers' offices, which is bound to leave a bad taste in everybody's mouths.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Flying in The Wrong Direction on NPR's Morning Edition
When Your Show's Produced in Washington and L.A, Sometimes The Facts Get Lost
Nancy Solomon had a report on today's "Morning Edition" on how Newark Liberty Airport takes the booby prize for having the most late arriving flights.
Part of the problem is too many planes, too little airspace.
Solomon capped the report by saying that a major new airport is being built on Long Island to help relieve congestion.
Which would be news to the people on Long Island, which has one airport, Islip MacArthur, with jet flights that local officials keep on a very tight leash.
Where Solomon should actually be looking is 50 miles north of Newark and Stewart International Airport in Newburgh, which the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey just bought to relieve the rampant airport madness closer to the city.
And which, it should be noted, is nowhere near Long Island.
Nancy Solomon had a report on today's "Morning Edition" on how Newark Liberty Airport takes the booby prize for having the most late arriving flights.
Part of the problem is too many planes, too little airspace.
Solomon capped the report by saying that a major new airport is being built on Long Island to help relieve congestion.
Which would be news to the people on Long Island, which has one airport, Islip MacArthur, with jet flights that local officials keep on a very tight leash.
Where Solomon should actually be looking is 50 miles north of Newark and Stewart International Airport in Newburgh, which the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey just bought to relieve the rampant airport madness closer to the city.
And which, it should be noted, is nowhere near Long Island.
Getting To Make Fun Of Your Own Newspaper Without Getting Fired
The Florida Times-Union's Wayne Ezell Shows The Foolishness of the Ad Department's Ways and Performs A Public Service at the Same Time
It's fun being a reader advocate or ombudsman sometimes. You can pretty much say what you want, skewer a few sacred cows and piss off people in the newsroom without fear of a pink slip.
Wayne Ezell at the Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville knows that well. Which is how he got to have fun at the expense of the newspaper's ad department, which accepted a full-page ad that had a big stink to it.
The cool part: people inside the newspaper aren't supposed to say "no comment," hang up or curse at the reader advocate. They have to provide answers, even if they wind up being lame like the one offered up by ad director Mark Cohen.
"We cannot check out the creditability [sic] of every advertiser or offer. However, if we have a legitimate complaint from a reader that they were in fact 'scammed, then we will investigate, and if found to be true we will no longer accept further advertising."
But does the T-U check out the veracity of any ad? Might a full-page ad that's advertising the ready availability of "surplus cash" ring a few warning bells? Apparently not, so long as the check clears. Times are tough in the news business, after all. Caveat emptor yada, yada, yada.
Which is why we need more Wayne Ezells helping us sort out the wheat from the chaff, even when his bosses profit handsomely from that chaff.
It's fun being a reader advocate or ombudsman sometimes. You can pretty much say what you want, skewer a few sacred cows and piss off people in the newsroom without fear of a pink slip.
Wayne Ezell at the Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville knows that well. Which is how he got to have fun at the expense of the newspaper's ad department, which accepted a full-page ad that had a big stink to it.
The cool part: people inside the newspaper aren't supposed to say "no comment," hang up or curse at the reader advocate. They have to provide answers, even if they wind up being lame like the one offered up by ad director Mark Cohen.
"We cannot check out the creditability [sic] of every advertiser or offer. However, if we have a legitimate complaint from a reader that they were in fact 'scammed, then we will investigate, and if found to be true we will no longer accept further advertising."
But does the T-U check out the veracity of any ad? Might a full-page ad that's advertising the ready availability of "surplus cash" ring a few warning bells? Apparently not, so long as the check clears. Times are tough in the news business, after all. Caveat emptor yada, yada, yada.
Which is why we need more Wayne Ezells helping us sort out the wheat from the chaff, even when his bosses profit handsomely from that chaff.
Update: Portland Press-Herald Asks Groups To Help It Pick Out Good Jews
Publisher Asks: You Mean Other People Have Big Noses and Eat Bagels Too?
While we don't expect the advertising department at the Portland Press-Herald to spontaneously break out singing "Hava Negila," at least the paper's trying to make sure it doesn't offend Jews again, after managing to pull off that feat twice in two weeks.
The newspaper is embarking on diversity training in order to empower its staff with some semblance of common sense (see below story).
All well and good, but the fact that we're having this conversation in 2007 is rather bewildering and incontrovertibly sad.
In other words, a shonda.
While we don't expect the advertising department at the Portland Press-Herald to spontaneously break out singing "Hava Negila," at least the paper's trying to make sure it doesn't offend Jews again, after managing to pull off that feat twice in two weeks.
The newspaper is embarking on diversity training in order to empower its staff with some semblance of common sense (see below story).
All well and good, but the fact that we're having this conversation in 2007 is rather bewildering and incontrovertibly sad.
In other words, a shonda.
Friday, February 16, 2007
The Portland Press-Herald's Problem With Jews
For The Second Time In Two Weeks, An Item Makes It Into The Paper That Definitely Isn't Kosher
First there was an ad for a sermon at a local Baptist church titled "The Only Way To Destroy The Jewish Race." OK, it was actually somehwat complimentary of Jews, but maybe the title was best kept out of the paper.
Then the Portland Press-Herald runs an ad for a local bank with a large headline "The Fee Bandit." Wouldn't you know? The guy in the picture above just happens to look a little too much like a Hasid you'd see walking down the street in Borough Park.
Oops. So, the putz factor apparently runs high at Maine's largest newspaper. Of course, Jews are not exactly, um, abundant Down East. Many people in the state probably haven't seen a Jew since "Seinfeld" went off the air. Nonetheless, a big-time boner, and the Press-Herald concedes as much.
"Publishing these advertisements was an unfortunate mistake and an error in judgment on our part, for which I accept full responsibility," blubbered publisher Charles Cochrane.
Thanks for that, Chuck, though, he was not in a contrite mood when contacted by the Sun-Journal in Lewiston and told them to kush meer in toches (kiss my ass).
"We don't discuss that - you'd need to call the advertiser about that," Cochrane said. "Have a nice day."
Apparently, Cochrane got a little religion in his keppe and changed his mind. But he's got some convincing to to do. Sorry's just not gonna cut it. As a local rabbi told the Sun-Journal: "One time is a mistake. Two times is a policy."
Cochrane may also have a little trouble convincing some of the inbred backwoods types who chimed in on the paper's Web site. Like this one from rocket scientist Clinch up in Poland Springs:
What's next? Will the NAACP complain about ads that have bronzed sun-tanned bodies in them? Will Juan Valdez and his Colombian coffee now be a poster child for sub-standard working conditions in South America? (What? He still has a donkey? Are his "kind" too poor to buy a "John Deere?" Some people need to get a life.
Or a clue.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
N.Y. Daily News Quits While It's Behind on Cesar Borja Story
Editorial Asserts Reporting Flawed, But Still Reflective of Big Picture of Woes Confronting Ground Zero First Responders
It's the journalistic equivalent of a hard-on. You own the story. It's your clips that TV reporters drag around when they write their own scripts for their live shots; the ones your competition is forced to match, or simply crib from.
Such was the tragic story of Cesar Borja, the New York cop who died of lung disease as a result of all the dust, asbestos and other crap that lingered in the air after the World Trade Center collapsed.
Borja's death caught the attention of many a politician, including Hillary Clinton and President Bush, who was lobbied by Borja's son Cesar Jr. to provide more federal dollars to help sickened first responders.
Borja's plight was first brought to light in January by the Daily News, who portrayed him as a tireless first responder who worked extended shifts on the pile after the towers collapsed.
It was a great story. Only problem, as The New York Times told us Monday in a 2,800-plus-word dispatch, it didn't quite hold up under closer scrutiny.
Borja was at Ground Zero, but not until December. Which means he didn't rush from a tow pound, where he spent most of his police career, straight to the pile, as the Daily News reported.
End result: A steady diet of crow on offer in the Daily News city room. And the paper, to its credit, owned up to as much in an editorial unusually placed on page 6 today:
We first stated that when the Trade Center collapsed, Borja "rushed to Ground Zero and started working long days there - even volunteering to work extra shifts." The article also asserted that Borja "volunteered to work months of 16-hour shifts in the rubble." Neither statement has been supported by documentary evidence.
The paper had first tried to spin its way out of being caught up in its own mess yesterday with a piece headlined "My dad will always be a hero to me!"
In the article, Borja's son, Cesar Jr. accused the Times of attacking his father's honor, even though the Times had quoted him as saying “I don’t believe my father to be any less heroic than I previously thought, any less valiant than the other papers previously misreported on.”
Today, it put aside its mea culpas, and for good reason.
The only consolation for the News is that the paper that scooped it was not the New York Post. Fear not, the Posties are reveling in what happened. The Murdoch gang used an editorial yesterday titled "Death of a Myth" to slam the News for hyping the Borja story without firm evidence his death was caused by Ground Zero exposure.
[Borja] had smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for years before quitting in the late '90s. And his regular NYPD assignment was at an auto tow pound, where surely he inhaled engine exhaust on each shift.
But the fable fabricated by the Daily News has energized a cash-driven crusade to authenticate a "Ground Zero Syndrome" - requiring billions in taxpayer outlays to palliate.
And to dig the knife in a little sharper, it called the Times story, by Sewell Chan and Al Baker, "genuine public-service reporting."
Which is one thing everybody should be able to agree on.
It's the journalistic equivalent of a hard-on. You own the story. It's your clips that TV reporters drag around when they write their own scripts for their live shots; the ones your competition is forced to match, or simply crib from.
Such was the tragic story of Cesar Borja, the New York cop who died of lung disease as a result of all the dust, asbestos and other crap that lingered in the air after the World Trade Center collapsed.
Borja's death caught the attention of many a politician, including Hillary Clinton and President Bush, who was lobbied by Borja's son Cesar Jr. to provide more federal dollars to help sickened first responders.
Borja's plight was first brought to light in January by the Daily News, who portrayed him as a tireless first responder who worked extended shifts on the pile after the towers collapsed.
It was a great story. Only problem, as The New York Times told us Monday in a 2,800-plus-word dispatch, it didn't quite hold up under closer scrutiny.
Borja was at Ground Zero, but not until December. Which means he didn't rush from a tow pound, where he spent most of his police career, straight to the pile, as the Daily News reported.
End result: A steady diet of crow on offer in the Daily News city room. And the paper, to its credit, owned up to as much in an editorial unusually placed on page 6 today:
We first stated that when the Trade Center collapsed, Borja "rushed to Ground Zero and started working long days there - even volunteering to work extra shifts." The article also asserted that Borja "volunteered to work months of 16-hour shifts in the rubble." Neither statement has been supported by documentary evidence.
The paper had first tried to spin its way out of being caught up in its own mess yesterday with a piece headlined "My dad will always be a hero to me!"
In the article, Borja's son, Cesar Jr. accused the Times of attacking his father's honor, even though the Times had quoted him as saying “I don’t believe my father to be any less heroic than I previously thought, any less valiant than the other papers previously misreported on.”
Today, it put aside its mea culpas, and for good reason.
The only consolation for the News is that the paper that scooped it was not the New York Post. Fear not, the Posties are reveling in what happened. The Murdoch gang used an editorial yesterday titled "Death of a Myth" to slam the News for hyping the Borja story without firm evidence his death was caused by Ground Zero exposure.
[Borja] had smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for years before quitting in the late '90s. And his regular NYPD assignment was at an auto tow pound, where surely he inhaled engine exhaust on each shift.
But the fable fabricated by the Daily News has energized a cash-driven crusade to authenticate a "Ground Zero Syndrome" - requiring billions in taxpayer outlays to palliate.
And to dig the knife in a little sharper, it called the Times story, by Sewell Chan and Al Baker, "genuine public-service reporting."
Which is one thing everybody should be able to agree on.
Saga at the Santa Barbara News-Press Just Keeps Getting Sadder
Not To Mention More Desperate and Pathetic as Editorial Page Editor Impales Himself On His Own Words
So, first we have a self-important millionairess publisher who sticks her nose in the news product to protect her friends and punish her own pet peeves. Top editors are given the boot along with some veteran reporters. Others follow them out the door. Massive community protests ensue along with a federal labor investigation.
End result: The Santa Barbara News-Press is a husk of its former self.
And in a continuing drive to show its ends justifies its means, editorial-page editor and acting publisher Travis Armstrong flailed away at former colleagues in a column Tuesday for taking a principled stand. The nerve.
In betraying the principles of their past craft, they appear to want to shut down the paper's free speech, as well as hurt the livelihoods of 200 News-Press workers and their families.
OK, let's put aside the fact that the ex-staffers have been exercising their free speech in protesting McCaw -- and Armstrong's wanton ways. Funny, don't recall Armstrong cozying up to the First Amendment when the News-Press, under the old regime, posted a short item about his DUI arrest. When he was sentenced, McCaw ordered the story on the court proceeding killed. So much for the First Amendment.
But Armstrong has in the past made no apologies for injecting himself into the newsgathering process, despite that generally being a no-no for those in the executive suite.
Now back to the screed:
Growing up in a Teamsters family, I remember as a young boy listening to men talk over the kitchen table or on the phone about spreading nails or damaging trucks. It was scary stuff.
Those who have brought such an outfit to our peaceful community deserve scorn.
... Where are groups such as the ACLU in battling this governmental interference in free expression?
Oy, vey. Cue the Stradivarius.
Many of the dozens of staffers who've quit or been fired gave the best years of their journalistic lives to the News-Press. None should be actively seeking to kill the paper. After all, Armstrong and McCaw are already doing a bang-up job of that on their own, as Susan Paterno exhaustively chronicled in the American Journalism Review. That article spurred a libel suit by McCaw that Paterno is aggressively defending.
The truth hurts, and as his column shows, Armstrong is in a lot of pain.
So, first we have a self-important millionairess publisher who sticks her nose in the news product to protect her friends and punish her own pet peeves. Top editors are given the boot along with some veteran reporters. Others follow them out the door. Massive community protests ensue along with a federal labor investigation.
End result: The Santa Barbara News-Press is a husk of its former self.
And in a continuing drive to show its ends justifies its means, editorial-page editor and acting publisher Travis Armstrong flailed away at former colleagues in a column Tuesday for taking a principled stand. The nerve.
In betraying the principles of their past craft, they appear to want to shut down the paper's free speech, as well as hurt the livelihoods of 200 News-Press workers and their families.
OK, let's put aside the fact that the ex-staffers have been exercising their free speech in protesting McCaw -- and Armstrong's wanton ways. Funny, don't recall Armstrong cozying up to the First Amendment when the News-Press, under the old regime, posted a short item about his DUI arrest. When he was sentenced, McCaw ordered the story on the court proceeding killed. So much for the First Amendment.
But Armstrong has in the past made no apologies for injecting himself into the newsgathering process, despite that generally being a no-no for those in the executive suite.
Now back to the screed:
Growing up in a Teamsters family, I remember as a young boy listening to men talk over the kitchen table or on the phone about spreading nails or damaging trucks. It was scary stuff.
Those who have brought such an outfit to our peaceful community deserve scorn.
... Where are groups such as the ACLU in battling this governmental interference in free expression?
Oy, vey. Cue the Stradivarius.
Many of the dozens of staffers who've quit or been fired gave the best years of their journalistic lives to the News-Press. None should be actively seeking to kill the paper. After all, Armstrong and McCaw are already doing a bang-up job of that on their own, as Susan Paterno exhaustively chronicled in the American Journalism Review. That article spurred a libel suit by McCaw that Paterno is aggressively defending.
The truth hurts, and as his column shows, Armstrong is in a lot of pain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)