![]() |
An annotated introduction
to Web pages of value to journalists.
|
Merry Christmas! Not so merry for the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer and the Seattle Times, who are in a legal battle
over their long-time joint operating agreement. The Times wants
to end the JOA and shutdown the P-I. In January, a three-judge
appeals panel will hear the case, but Bill Richards, a Seattle
freelancer under special contract with the Seattle Times to cover the
controversy, says any ruling by the judges is not likely to end the
conflict--or the acrimony. (Does this qualify Richards as an
ombudsman? We can certainly hope for a
book when his contract ends--unless they've got some kind of JOA with
him to prevent such a disclosure!) Richards reported earlier that
the Times has agreed to keep publishing the P-I through 2007 even
without the JOA.
There's a history of bad blood here. In 1983, a JOA between
the papers explicitly prevented the P-I from having any presence on the
World Wide Web. That exclusion was renegotiated so I suppose lots
of other details can be worked out in the current version of the
conflict. But the JOA is simply life-support for the P-I, and the
plug should be pulled.
Remember when newspapers in the same city competed for readers with
enterprising journalism instead of with lawyers?
Sadly for journalism, in the end it comes down to money. The
federal law that allows JOA's is designed to keep competing papers
alive in the same city in the interest of readers. In Seattle,
the JOA is costing both papers money; however, the P-I may have the
deeper pockets, being owned by the Hearst Corporation. The Times,
owned by the Blethen family interests, may be seeing its lifeblood
drained by helping to keep the P-I operating (it recently sold land it
owns in the neighborhood in an effort to "improve the company's
deteriorating financial position," according to Times' officers quoted
by Richards).
Over the long haul, and with lots of support from the respective
owners, the P-I could emerge as the winner in this fight, and in the
name of good journalism it doesn't deserve to win. The Hearst
Corporation has the right of first refusal should Blethen ever decide
to sell the Times, which will only happen if th Times continues to
bleed revenue, and the JOA is neither a Band-Aid or a tourniquet; it's
a leech at best!
The federal court needs to stop looking at the fiscal records and
read the two newspapers; they'd quickly discover that the P-I isn't
serious about enterprising journalism, civic journalism, or any kind of
journalism other than what brings in corporate bucks.
The P-I maintains a single "national correspondent," who in reality
is a columnist, and a single correspondent in Washington, D.C.
Its news from the international scene is almost exclusively supplied by
the Associated Press wire service. It maintains meager news gathering
operations outside the city of Seattle (and relatively meager inside
Seattle).
The Times, on the other hand, while not known for its international
coverage, keeps at least two reporters in Washington, D.C., and is not
afraid to send its reporters around the globe. It has won
national awards for stories written about AIDS in Africa and about the
Middle East conflict. All this in addition to heavy coverage of every
aspect of life in the Evergreen State. In short, the Times has
invested heavily in legitimate news gathering, something the P-I
consistently short-changes.
That's not to say there are no good journalists at the P-I, but
Hearst's reputation has never been on the side of defending and
maintaining the "fourth estate." The P-I should die because
despite its professional efforts it represents everything that's bad
about "corporate journalism." It would be an almost perfect
solution if the Times could merely absorb whatever (and whoever) is
good at the P-I and get Hearst out of Seattle. But don't look for
that to happen soon, if ever. It would require some savvy,
newspaper-reading judges.
In the aftermath of the attack on the World Trade Center, an interest in religion news is coming to the fore, mostly focussed on Islam. Ironically, ABC-TV News cut its staff by eliminating religion specialist Peggy Wehmeyer from her post. Wehmeyer, hired in 1996, has been the only network television specialist covering religion. At the same time, ABC announced a deal with beliefnet.com to cover religion. The deal comes just days after beliefnet released its own news editor. I wrote about this problem several years ago with an emphasis on newspapers and again on how editors disdain such news; things haven't changed much, and now the media are scrambling to find experts on religion. Beliefnet.com, by the way, is an excellent site for locating news and commentary on religion despite some financial woe..
Working hard to fill a hole in religion news left by the financial problems of Beliefnet.com (it filed for bankruptcy in April, 2002, though is still a strong presence) is the much improved Web site of the Religion Newswriters Association (RNA).
Read a chronicle of the futile
running battle to save the
Honolulu
Star-Bulletin in reporter Ian Lind's diary at:
http://ilind.net/
| "If your mother says she
loves you,
check it out."
|
Highlights of this site:
For those interested in what I think of the job of journalism, please read selected columns I've written on the topic.
return to top
It covers many weeklies and non-daily
publications, and even lists newspapers
that remain without a URL address.
AJR also provides a fine
listing of major magazines.
I've also provided a small
annotated listing of magazines.
http://www.cartoonbank.com/(The Cartoon Bank)
http://www.toonville.com/ (Toonville)
http://www.cagle.com/art (Cagle's Art Page)
| Begin WebSites for Journalists at its home page. |