I know, I know, I should be asleep. But I've had quite a day...and I'll leave it at that for now, but my mind is buzzing.

Today I received an email charging me to "help us (the Journal Register Company) figure out what we should be doing (in the news industry)." ...Glad you asked.

My ideas range from the minute to the grandiose, and many of them have already been recognized by more experienced minds. But a few that are important to me...

-We need better ways to collate information. One thing the Web can do that print couldn't is build on previous stories, right at readers' fingertips. For instance, Coatesville suffered a series of arsons over 18 months. We wrote many articles about them, have award-winning photographs, have video, are now writing about the trials of some of the accused arsonists...why are we making our readers work to find this background? We need to make it easily accessible.

-In keeping with that, some very simple changes. Our datelines should be hotlinked. So should our bylines. Those are the simplest, most effective keywords we have, and with one click, they would call up a list of relevant stories.

-A biggie, that I know is already receiving attention: Our Web publishing. Our software is clunky and awkward, and linked awkwardly to our print content management system. Another thing the Web can do that was harder in print is: Make it pretty. I've been pushing the idea that news is a service rather than a product, but on this point I will concede. Our content needs to be reminiscent of a magazine. The other day, I picked up an informational book in a store, flipped through it, and set it down immediately. The font was too small, dated, and clunky. I knew I wouldn't be able to concentrate on the content because the package was giving me a headache.

-Just to reiterate, beyond making it pretty, it needs to be easier to update from the field. Our website should not be much more difficult to deal with than this blog post.

-Videos. Now that we've gotten used to shooting video at JRC, we need to level up. We need someone to lead a workshop on putting mini-documentaries together, and also teach a little bit more about tools beyond FlipShare. This can be done as a live workshop, but also put on the Web as a replayable Webinar.

-And finally, 100 percent coverage, as per Jay Rosen's idea here. This will get its own post tomorrow, but we need to think about what that means, and how feasible it is for individuals. I think that a related idea is dimension. If I have photos, video, and text for a story, how can I make sure they complement one another? I can also tweet, blog, and Facebook - and I can do all six of those things without exhausting a story, irritating my audience, or even just overlapping.

The bottom line with all of this is quality of content. Bells and whistles will only piss off readers if they feel they're not actually getting value. We're not TV, and we're not just print. We're multimedia, and we're allowed to promote ourselves with tactics that are a little shiny.

When I first hit the newsroom, I thought a lot about the media world as a whole. And one early question that struck me was: Why isn't there any certification for journalists? I agree that a broad-based education better prepares individuals to be journalists, but that doesn't take away from the technical aspects of the job.

I was a bit chagrined to realize that the reason is no simpler than...the First Amendment. Journalists have resisted any regulation of the profession because it's too easy for it to constitute a limit to the freedom of speech.

But after my embarrassment subsided, I continued to question the status quo. While I believe it would be certainly unconstitutional to enact legislation banning what many are now calling "citizen journalism," that doesn't prevent the industry from forming its own standards, including some kind of certification showing knowledge of legal issues and industry standards.

This cover story from the Columbia Journalism Review explores this question somewhat, saying the answer to the "critical question" of "the options for public policy reform that might strengthen the media’s contributions to American democracy and civic health" is clear: "We badly require new policies and new thinking in Washington because the media policy regime we have inherited is out of date and inadequate for the times in which we live."

Now, I'm the last person who should be arguing for raising the barrier to entry. I'm currently employed as a journalist with zero formal training. The opportunity changed my life - and I think I have something to offer to the journalism world as well. But at the same time, I am still in the middle of a serious learning curve that affects everything from the structure of my articles to my knowledge of legal issues.

Can policy make a difference? This article in the Guardian may suggest that's so. According to the story, readership is actually growing - in Canada. The article says "...Print and digital readership has risen by 500,000 or so in the past five years. Market penetration in the most important cities ranged between 75% and 80%." It suggests we can learn something from Canada, that they're doing something differently.

Whether it's the economic climate, a question of policy, or a murkier cultural coalescence is very difficult to say. But it seems likely that policy, somewhere along the line, contributes to it.

What do you think of the relationship between policy and journalism? What is it, and what should it be?

The last six months have seemed to go faster than any period of my life before now, I think.

My transition to full-time reporter has been fraught with wrenches thrown into the works. The two homicides (one a premeditated, cruel and unusual murder) I covered from my first days of working full time presented a challenge that was personal as well as professional.

Despite an interest in newspapers from a young age (I talked my fourth grade class into starting a class "newspaper"...one of my first public speaking experiences!), I never studied journalism or intended to pursue it as a career.

The biggest reason was extremely simple. In high school, I had read a book by a journalist talking about realizing, years into his career, that he had ceased to see his subjects as people. He looked for the questions that would bring out the tears. He might act sympathetic, but he didn't hesitate to walk up to a victim of a crime or the relative of someone who had just died, stick a tape recorder in their face, and ask, "How do you feel?"

That's what I never wanted to do, ever. And yet just as I began to work full time, that's what I felt like my job was asking me to do.

The evolution of that story will be told another time, but suffice to say I found my coping resources stretched to breaking. By my fourth day working as an official, full time reporter, I was in the newspaper's parking lot in tears, on the phone with my mother.

Two weeks later, I fell down the stairs and broke the middle finger of my right hand, rendering me unable to write by hand for nearly two months and slowing me down considerably as I attempted to get up to speed as a daily reporter with a challenging beat.

I have never stopped thinking about incorporating social media into my coverage and exploring publishing models. But each time I think I have the ability to do it regularly, I'm pulled off in another direction.

Perhaps more to the point, my "voice" has been buried behind the news I cover. I've worried about compromising relationships necessary to my reporting through writing from my personal viewpoint, especially when I don't have sufficient lay of the land. And I've felt like my commentary on the journalism industry has fallen prey to a rocky transition from a meta, outside view to an internal everyday view - one I very much need, but to which I've had to adjust.

And stylistically...well, as a mentor/editor keeps telling me, "Dare to be boring." (He occasionally follows it with the nickname, "Hamlet" because he says I keep going all "to be or not to be" on him.) Daring to be boring may be helping my journalism, but it's making my other writing, well, boring.

But there's been a slight shift this week. A little more composure. A little more balance. And so - we'll see. Maybe this time's the charm when it comes to social media.

What makes newspapers different...

...when they're not papers anymore?

Last week, I was offered a full-time position at the Daily Local News. I accepted - and Saturday, before I had even begun officially started that position, news of two separate murders broke on the same day.

Man, oh man, have I been wishing I had the tools - an iPhone or other smart phone, an iPad, and a netbook - that will be given to members of the ideaLab, the Journal Register's new initiative!

But mobility is really only part of the story. The way news is delivered changes, society changes, people's desires from news change somewhat - change itself is the only thing that is inevitable. That's why we need to make sure development and adaptability are our key values.

Two thoughts:

1. It's obvious how these tools can be useful right out of the box in terms of mobility. This would imply that those who are more familiar with developing technology should have the tools, because they could do more. This does affect my nominations; however -

2. We don't just need people who know how to develop apps. We need people who experiment with them as the average user will, but who are savvy, out-of-the-box thinkers. The way news is being delivered is changing, but it's changed before and will change again. There will not be a time when we can breathe a sigh of relief, sit back and know that we won't have to go through this mindset-jostling-process again. That's why we need people who possess adaptability as a trait to act as our developers and guinea pigs.

I'm hoping that the ideaLab is a precursor to recognizing the demands of the newsroom and equipping all staff appropriately. This does not necessarily mean handing all staffers a full arsenal of products, but giving these tools to people who will experiment should give us some data on what tool is best for what job. Some staff might be better served, for example, by a netbook than by a computer at their desks.

And finally, one last thought: we don't need to be TV news. As I covered a sensitive conspiracy murder case this week, I talked to long-time neighbors of the family torn apart by the tragedy. At first, they asked to be anonymous. After we talked, I asked again if, considering what they said, they were willing to let me use their names. They said yes - but had I been quick to whip out a camera, I doubt they would have been. As we adapt to a multimedia world, there are still benefits to the intimacy of what we do.

Also - related to intern life - check out the Daily Local interns' blog, linked from the right and also here: Will Work for Clips.

Journalism is a service, not a product

"Media companies are ongoing victims of the evolving user paradigm, because we spend our efforts trying to duplicate the money machine known as order-taking advertising. We mistakenly think that the established equilibrium of the past will, sooner or later, come to fruition online, and that is impossible when people who used to be our audiences are evolving faster than we are. We pay no (or little) attention to the user experience, because we're too busy multiplying the number of page views we can tout to advertisers. The cost of interaction that users must pay with us should be our most important metric, but it's often not even on the page. Hell, if we can shift six page views into seven, why not?" -R&D

The title of the blog from which this is quoted is "Local Media in a Postmodern World," and maybe it's because I studied postmodernism before I studied media, but I have been decrying the commercial infrastructure of newspapers since I became aware of it - which, sad to say, is pretty recently. Did I honestly think the pennies people paid for newspapers paid for journalists? No; it's even worse. I never thought about it at all.

In a way, we're blessed because now people are thinking about it. While it's true that people will use information against you, in many ways, with an explanation, people become better equipped to collaborate. For instance, admitting to our public that on an average day we have two copy editors proofing and laying out the entire paper does promote some understanding that while typos aren't acceptable, they aren't a capital crime (caveat: as long as we don't use it as an excuse). Instead of an editing mistake becoming a colossal tower of shoddiness and laziness at the paper - given that we tell our readers what we are trying to do about it - such mistakes become understandable.

People can be pretty smart; as one reader pointed out to me, there is a certain amount of "self-policing" that occurs in comments, where one commenter will address the inaccuracy of another's assumption.

And significantly for our concerns, when people realize that it takes money to produce quality journalism, they begin to get accustomed to the idea of paying for the journalism itself, rather than paying magically by taking a cursory glance at the latest Sears ad. Maybe they're not ready to do it yet - but I really believe the mentality is beginning to develop.

I'm trying to develop some "practice rules" for ethical journalism in light of business concerns (in the process of writing my thesis). I believe that business is by nature an ethical endeavor - that ethics separates business from crime, because if business were purely driven by profit motives, that's what it would be. (This might explain a lot, if you think about it.)

My favorite example, which I stumbled across in an academic journal, is that if a tax auditor covers up financial weaknesses, this is not "simply" an ethical failure - she is wrong also because she is no longer auditing. In that vein, deciding how to do journalism both profitably and ethically is a question of defining what it means to "do journalism" at all - hence, the need for what I am calling "practice rules." This process - I think - will help to clarify what exactly it is we're asking people to pay for, and justify that payment.

Linking and learning

Aggregation Day!

I'm looking for reactions to these stories in the theme of what it means for digital news. If you were designing a news website, what would you keep in mind from these stories? What principles or strategies do they suggest to you?

Is Print Media Doomed Worldwide or Just in the U.S.?

"As I walked in the headquarters of the Jawa Pos—the flagship newspaper of one of South East Asia’s largest print media empires—I was wondering just how screwed my profession is; globally I mean."

Dylan Jones: 'News is oxygen and it's a very crowded atmosphere'

The editor of GQ on his political connections, the importance of apps and why he loves the Hay festival.

Experiments in Delinkification

"The link is, in a way, a technologically advanced form of a footnote. It's also, distraction-wise, a more violent form of a footnote. Where a footnote gives your brain a gentle nudge, the link gives it a yank. What's good about a link -- its propulsive force -- is also what's bad about it."

At my first staff meeting with my interns yesterday, I mentioned some information from the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell describing how opportunity works.

I told them: age matters. You are at the right time in history with the right opportunities to direct the future of news. On the flip side - you have to define what happens next in news, you have to be a part of it, or you won't have a job.

In a little more detail, interns and friends, here is the information. P.S. - I highly recommend reading this book.

"Historians start with Cleopatra and the pharoahs and comb through every year in human history ever since, looking in every corner of the world for evidence of extraordinary wealth, and almost 20 percent of the names they end up with come from a single generation in a single country." - Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers

Immediately prior, Gladwell had explained that 14 of the 75 richest people in the history of the world were born within nine years of each other in the mid-nineteenth century.

So what gives? These people, Gladwell tells us, made their fortunes in the 1860s and 1870s, when the railroads - and Wall Street - were being built, when economics were being remade. What this list tells us, he says, is that it really matters how old you were when the transformation happened.

"If you were born in the late 1840s you missed it. You were too young to take advantage of the moment. If you were born in the 1820s you were too old; your mind-set was shaped by the pre-Civil War paradigm. But there was a particular, narrow nine-year window that was just perfect for seeing the potential that the future held." In a footnote, he adds that this is also the only period in American history when those born in modest circumstances had a shot at this kind of wealth.

Gladwell goes on to apply the same analysis to computer technology. The biggest date in the personal computer revolution was January 1975. "If you were more than a few years out of college in 1975, then you belonged to the old paradigm. You'd just bought a house. You were married. ... So let's rule out all those born before, say, 1952.

"At the same time, you don't want to be too young. You really want to get in on the ground floor, right in 1975, and you can't do that if you're still in high school. So let's also rule out anyone born after, say, 1958. The perfect age to be in 1975, in other words, is old enough to be a part of the coming revolution but not so old that you've missed it. Ideally, you want to be 20 or 21, which is to say, born in 1954 or 1955."

This range - 1952-1958 with a focus on those middle years - describes Bill Gates (1955), Microsoft's co-founder Paul Allen (1953), Steve Ballmer of Microsoft (1956), Steve Jobs (1955), Eric Schmidt of Novell and later CEO of Google (1955), and Bill Joy, computer legend, writer of much of the underlying code for the internet (1954).

This column originally appeared in the Daily Local News.

Mirror or lamp?

Well, hurry up, decide. Which should news be: a mirror or a lamp?

Often, I've heard comments that so-and-so just watches or reads such-and-such news because it confirms their political bias. I seem to detect some disapproval in these remarks. You know, just a smidge.

But it's a little unclear who's at fault. The news consumer, usually, is being criticized for their lack of discrimination; but the news provider is tainted, too, for not educating the consumer properly.

One of the background problems in evaluating whether journalism is "done well" or not stems from figuring out which metaphor we're looking for. Should journalism reflect the passions and interests of the day, or should it take responsibility to guide public debate?

When we read or watch news, we're looking for information, but often we're also looking for context. In business reporting, for example, those of us without finance degrees need some translating, some explanation of why a given business or economic event is important and what consequences it might have.

In political reporting, those of us who haven't memorized the bios of every member of state or national legislatures and can't quote the bill number of every piece of legislation related to the current one need the same thing. But every decision made by the people who give us that background flirts with the space between reflecting and guiding.

The truth is not something that rises up by itself like bread dough; just reflecting, as a mirror, whatever is most noteworthy on a given day isn't enough to meet the obligations we place on our press. But any shaping or guiding, lighting the way like a lamp, can lead to perceived meddling, giving up the authority journalists are supposed to have as truth-tellers.

So it seems there are problems with either metaphor. Treating the news as a reflection is a problem not only — not even, necessarily primarily — because journalism "ought not" to be passive, but because it is not.

Journalism shapes public debate; if journalists ignore that, they fail to dig up the "truth." By consciously recognizing and responding to public needs, though, journalists run the risk of paternalism, or creating the opportunity for the kind of "confirmation bias" of which we are so critical.

For example, there is a growing movement called "public journalism," which tries to take an actively self-reflective role in the production of news with the conscious goal of spurring public deliberation and interaction in the governing process — things that newspeople are sometimes criticized for failing to do.

But who are journalists to tell the public what it needs to know, what it needs to do? Nobody. And yet, isn't that part of what it means to be a "watchdog press" — an inevitable result?

As the much-quoted masthead of the New York Observer said until recently, there is "Nothing sacred but the truth." But here the line blurs. Perhaps the truth is sacred, but like many sacred things, it wears many faces and is invariably interpreted on a thoroughly subjective basis.

In the attempt to figure out what it means for journalism to be "good" — so that we know what we need, so that we know when journalism is failing us or when we're failing it, hey, even so that we know what's worth paying for — we need to recognize that there's some gray area here.

But the complaint about confirmation bias I hear holds the news consumer responsible as much as the news producer. In order to maintain a watchdog press, we need a watchdog public. We need, as individuals, to check our values, to ask ourselves why we agree or disagree with one news source over another. And maybe to do that, we need both metaphors; maybe we need a lamp in front of a mirror.

Katrina Dix is the assistant news editor at the Daily Local News, as well as a graduate student in an applied ethics program. She welcomes your thoughts on the media (because she knows you have them!). To contact her, send an e-mail to kdix@dailylocal.com.

On leaving Facebook

I miss Facebook.

A week ago today, I finally got fed up with "Facebook drama" - a phenomenon to which, after my five years on Facebook, I thought I might be immune. Until a couple of months ago, when I was reminded just how easy it is to disprove a rule. I was more upset with caring about what people did on Facebook than with what was happening; add in the amount of time I feel I waste there, and it was time for a hiatus. So I deactivated my account.

But I do, in fact, miss the updates; I feel a little cut off. It's surprising how quickly the Facebook world recedes, how easy it is to feel like nothing's happening if you're not witnessing it. It's a little harder to get in touch with some people, a little more stressful; I'm not communicating with acquaintances, only closer friends.

I'm not ready to go back yet, but I know it's only a matter of time - especially as I miss some of the particularly useful elements. I have not been able to utilize the group I made for summer interns; I made a new profile specifically to run such a group, but I find myself reluctant to use it. Perhaps even more importantly, I also think Facebook might be useful to a research decision I have to make.

For me, the most effective way to do research has long been to print a wastefully large stack of articles - journal, newspaper, magazine, et. al - and mark them up with black pen and yellow highlighter. I deeply appreciate the wide margins of journal articles for this purpose. There is something about pen and paper, the immediacy of being able to highlight something that grabs me and scribble a note as to why, that gives me a record of my first response which I otherwise lose in the aether of consciousness.

However, I dislike carting around a large stack of paper almost as much as I dislike wasting reams of it in the first place. So although this is the "most effective" way for me to do my research, it is not effective enough. Now that I am preparing to write my thesis - on something that will require current research, a pile to which I will probably add a short article or two a day - I need another method.

Enter Facebook. It immediately occurred to me that I could take the option of having a "Links" tab at the top of my profile and add links to my research to that. This way, I could effectively share my research and get responses to at least some of it, sneakily pushing discussion of my thesis topic on all my 800 friends. Or the 200 that actually comment on my wall, anyway.

Twitter could potentially serve a similar function, and I need to start making use of that particular social media. But I don't think it would arrange the links in a really easily accessible way.

The added problem is that these formats allow me to save the locations of my research, but not my comments on it - perpetuating the loss of those invaluable initial thoughts. So they don't solve my research problem...but I still really like the idea of publishing my ongoing research via Facebook links.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

On a slightly more personal note - okay, okay, so "more often" updating I promised is "once a month" rather than "once in eight months," instead of the once a day I aim for. But I'm getting there. The semester is mostly concluded; I still have quite a bit of work to finish for one class, but it's manageable. Unmanageable at the moment is my schedule otherwise. I took a serving job at a new and exciting restaurant focused on sustainable practices...and leading up to the opening, I'm there for long shifts every day. The interns are also starting at the newspaper in dribbles and drabs, and I expect to have the full complement by Monday at 11 a.m.

Summer? Vacation? What are those things? =D However, I am energized by the projects at hand. I'm still more focused on taking it easy than I used to be; I am prioritizing rest (as Mark, my forensics coach, used to say: Protect your rest!). There aren't enough hours in the day for all I want to accomplish right now, but that doesn't mean I should hurl myself against the brick wall of exhaustion for longer than necessary - it means prioritizing.

In closing, here is one article that I'm looking at this morning, an impressively well-writing rumination on the pleasures and perils of Twitterporting: Tweet the Press.

What's up, Internet?

Don't look at me in that tone of voice. It's only been eight months. Do you know how little time that is, in the scheme of things? That's not even enough time to pop out a kid! Or a thesis, which is the burgeoning birth process in MY life, at least. Journalism is still very nearly in a free-fall, don't fret. Plenty of time to comment on the insanity of what is quickly becoming my universe.

My hiatus from this blog coincides with actually getting a job. In late August last year, the paper I was blogging from as freelance writer/volunteer intern coordinator actually hired me, as assistant news editor - a half-time position that allowed me to stay in my graduate program.

Now, just 11 months after quitting my job as a barista and going back to school, I am a month away from completing the credit requirements for my master's degree. I have taken one weekend off from my job at the paper in the last year, and that was to go to Dublin (a trip planned even before I was hired).

I do not recommend attempting this at home.

But! Dedication to this blog has festered and erupted anew today, and as I gear up for my thesis - a bastardization of philosophy, communication theory, business ethics, and the down-and-dirty heritage of journalism - I hope you will join me in my journey.

Yesterday, I submitted a proposal to present research at a graduate symposium at the end of April. The discussion will center on an argument that business is not inherently amoral, and what this means for journalism.

I think I've answered one of the questions that was theoretically pressing to me: can journalism operate ethically, as a business? The only alternative seemed to be nonprofit journalism, which would suffer from donor bias and hamstrung ambition, likely among other things.

This is a theoretical approach, rather than practical. But business practices are influenced by theory - economic, ethical, and otherwise. I believe that not only is business inherently subject to practice rules that operate as ethical constraints (example: when an auditor covers up financial problems, for kickbacks or whatever other reason, she is failing not because she is not complying with laws, but because she is no longer auditing), but that conversely, the limits placed on the ethical demands of journalism because it is a trade create a balance between its moral mandate and its business needs.

Mouthful, huh? There's more to the discussion, which I will no doubt be breaking down more in the near future - and I'll be commenting on further examples in the media/business world. But in general, my immediate question is: how? I think that the business of journalism does have inherent ethical practice rules - but that these are limited. Limited by what, though? By constraints of profitability? By what can reasonably be expected of journalism? And limited how? How can we tell when journalism has stepped past what it is supposed to do?

One piece of my project will be defining norms for journalism - and the first step will be figuring out what exactly that means.

As always, I welcome your feedback on any aspect of the media industry!

Thought for the day:

"However you define journalism — a term I generally hate anyway but have no substitute coinage for — it will still be practiced by human beings who need to pay rent and purchase food.

"Where will they get that money? And thus, how will the activity of journalism be enabled, if not by the presently-constituted profession of 'journalism'? Especially if 'unnamed model that someone else will invent later' is not an allowable answer?"

-From TunedIn

Negotiating with terrorists.

Smack at the barbed-wire-surrounded heart of conflict resolution, this issue could sober up anybody, even at a Friday happy hour after the end of a legislative session.

The questions at hand: Did the U.S. negotiate with terrorists by sending Bill Clinton to North Korea? What does the U.S. policy "We do not negotiate with terrorists" mean - that is, what are its limits and history? And finally, should we negotiate with terrorists? What are the issues at stake, and are they issues of ethics, politics, or simply practicality?

North Korea is, technically, a legitimately governed/recognized country. Lisa Ling, TV personality, has related that her sister, Laura Ling, former hostage, concedes having been on North Korean soil "for about 30 seconds." Arresting two journalists while there does not, technically, constitute an act of terrorism. Just to top it off, Clinton holds no formal position in government, and our Secretary of State denies that he apologized to the government there.

The journalists may have been illegally held, charged egregiously, etc. etc. I in no way mean to suggest North Korea was justified. As a journalist, I am aghast at the entire situation. As a philosophical analyst, however, I'm just suggesting that a recognized government's reprehensible actions may illegitimate the ethical or moral status of said government, and certainly give them (in this case, merely worsen) a nasty case of p.r. acne, but it does not automatically turn the government into terrorists.

My second question - What is the U.S. policy, what are its limits and history - is cited because it follows, but it's a larger question than I can answer. It makes sense that a government does not want to set a precedent of rewarding illegal and despicable activity.

As one example of a prior situation, according to a New York Times article, the terrorists who beheaded United States independent contractor Nick Berg in May 2004 claimed that they offered an exchange of hostages. The article, from May 11, 2004 - the day the video of his beheading began to circulate, three days after his body was recovered - states that before the beheading, one of the captors said on camera: "For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, we tell you that we offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage with some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib and they refused." Full disclosure: As stated in my biographical information, I live in West Chester, PA, Nick Berg's home town.

The United States government denies that any such offer was made. Would we have agreed to an exchange if it had? The U.S. government, after all, does not negotiate with terrorists.

Which brings me to the third question. In an article on Mediate.com, Chris Currie, a mediator and conflict management trainer since 1987, argues that we should, in fact, negotiate with terrorists. Currie, who holds a Master of Arts degree in conflict resolution from Antioch University, writes:

But doesn’t negotiating with someone whose behavior you abhor grant them legitimacy that they didn’t have before, and therefore reward criminal activity? Won’t this encourage further bad behavior because it means we have given into pressure? According to Fisher, it may confer a little legitimacy, but this effect can be minimized by involving relatively low level or non-governmental personnel in the initial talks. The effect could actually be eliminated if we had a policy of negotiating with anyone. With such a policy, no one could attain special status just because negotiations were opened.

His concluding paragraph offers the observation, "One person’s 'terrorist' is another person’s 'freedom fighter.'"

Ethically, to whom is our responsibility? To the Nick Bergs - and to some extent, Laura Lings - of the world and their families? Or to the potential, as-yet-faceless hostages who might be abducted if abduction were certain to lead to gain?

Oh apologies.

I would say WaPo seems to be acting like an irresponsible youth, but it's too old. Can I say maybe it's having a senior moment...or would I have to apologize over a beer?

Two of the Washington Post's journalists are apologizing today (following publisher Weymouth's snafu last month) for a crack which was effectively about serving our Lady Secretary a drink called "Mad B---- Beer."

And now they're in trou-ble, I relate in a singsong, as executive editor Marcus Baruchli cancels the entire Mouthpiece Theater series, a comedic - well, a comedic mouthpiece, hosted on the WaPo site and described as "Political commentary from two of the biggest maws in Washington."

To visit the "who does it hurt" bar, apparently it hurts women in action in the media. Or so one would conclude from the letter sent by the organization Women, Action, and the Media, which called the joke "sexist" and "tasteless."

What is the interplay between ethics and comedy? Comedians are the negotiators of the entertainment world, expected to push past the limit - and yet there is hell to pay when they push too far. (This problematizes the issue of a "limit," but that's the subject for another line of philosophical inquiry altogether. Or a calc class.) Or should this instead be considered an issue of the relationship between journalists - especially when venerable news organizations are their, er, mouthpieces - and comedy?

I am going to venture into dangerous territory, the territory called Speculation (you know, where all your oxen die on the Oregon Trail) and say that I think WAM (what an acronym! Wait, do I need to apologize for that?) would call the crack against H. Clinton sexist and tasteless whether it involved a mouthpiece, codpiece, any other kind of piece (especially given the implied links to prostitution and gun violence) or the lack of any piece at all.

And I would be inclined to agree. First of all, there's just so much more to make fun of when it comes to Clinton and beer. Am I the only one who remembers Clinton's shot-of-whiskey-with-a-beer-chaser photo op (warning: link is actually a video) while on spring 2008's campaign trail? Or that Obama responded, "Around election time, the candidates, they just can't do enough. They'll promise you anything, they’ll give you a long list of proposals. They'll even come around with TV crews in tow and throw back a shot and a beer."

But secondly, and more seriously, while I don't curl up with a political correctness blankie at night, nor do I think serious media organizations can or should ignore social movements still working to correct centuries-or-millenia-old inequalities. A responsible media recognizes that it's not just about the political backlash, but the social backsliding possible and implicit in jokes about gender, sexual orientation, and race.

Though I must admit it's a tough line to draw. After all, I did briefly consider how AA must have felt. Our president issues a public invitation to drink beer? What's next, swatting flies?

'Twould be remiss of the Philosophy Kat, I think, not to philosophize on Bill Clinton's recent triumph. But first, a note on the philosophizing itself.

Today I spoke with an...administrative person, shall we say, at a well-known NGO, about establishing a relationship with the NGO and a certain university. She inquired what department I was most associated with, and I told her, "Philosophy."

Her voice nearly dripped with disdain (though not, I must admit, real ill-will) as she said, "You do understand that we undertake to promote sustainable and practical skills?"

I laughed and assured her that the department most likely to establish a program was the illustrious and semi-ubiquitous department of education. She was much relieved.

However, this is, to an extent, the problem. A grounding in philosophy prepares one to grasp the essence of a situation, and to adapt quickly to various circumstances. Skills are the clothes in which theory is dressed. The entirely fair question, I must admit, is: "How? How, Philosophy Kat, does a grounding in philosophy prepare its young lisping learners to grasp the essence of a situation and adapt quickly to various circumstances?"

Let's apply it to the question of Mr. Clinton's little trot over to North Korea, which the New York Times called a "riveting tableau." Frankly, I can't disagree. But what makes it so riveting?

The man was a popular president for eight years; yeah, he was disgraced and impeached and all, but he was followed by such a spectacular flameout that, let's face it, many of us secretly wished for a prez with a loose zipper rather than a loose budget. Nostalgia knows few bounds even without an unpopular war based on specious evidence and followed by an economic meltdown. Anyway, most of us out there, nowadays, like Clinton. We know Clinton. We trust Clinton. Like some real-life superhero (Hey, uh, has anyone ever seen Clinton and Batman in the same room?) he orchestrated a crucial negotiation, and while in general the populace is relieved, it's hard to call us surprised.

The level on which this little play is fascinating, aside from its hero-in-shining-suit aspect, is political. Clinton once wore the crown; his wife battled for it like a...well, no simile that would be, er, politically correct is coming to mind. Which may sum up the point. Anyway, post-battle, Mrs. Clinton is now Secretary of State - NOT her husband - and, by the by, she just headed off for a bit of a P.R. tour in Africa. Which has now been completely eclipsed. There are delicate issues of state at stake! Of pride and visibility! And, more to the point...power.

Ah, here we come to it. Who has the power to represent and speak for the American government, and by implication its people, and in what capacity?

How to make decisions about the appropriate exercise of power, lesson 6 in your textbook for...what class, again? Teaching? I see a review of linguistics, a few courses on writing lesson plans, but nothing about POWER. How about Agriculture, or Health, or Biology? No?

Oh, there it is. A few courses on other cultures in some social disciplines (also widely regarded as an impractical degree), some in political science departments (mostly reviewing history) and a whole slew of studies of human rights, ethics, moral history and theory, theory and use of power, and the developments in how that power has been applied, from Plato to Locke (and beyond, of course). And...for the grand finale...examination, from Philosophy 101 onward, of the relationship of one school of thought to another.

In other words, exactly what one would need to perform such a negotiation. Or, as is more likely in the role of the citizen, to make a decision about whether or not it was handled properly and what to say about it and to whom and how it will affect one's voting in the future.

This consideration is only strengthened when applied to the media. A journalist has the responsibility of portraying the information accurately, to convey the concerns of those in power and how they may or may not align with the desire of those to whom the power ultimately belongs - in other words, citizens. And citizens must interpret the event and the media's coverage of it.

I'm not necessarily saying that without training in philosophical thought - that is, investigative critical thought and prior examination of the deeper issues, freeing one to attend the issues at hand with a firm grounding - people are unable to create good journalism or vote well (although, I sort of want to say that. Anyone who does these things is applying philosophical skills, even if they didn't pick it up in a philosophy class).

I believe philosophy is fundamental. If you think this is a weak argument, please, give me the opportunity to develop it. Because that's something else philosophy has taught me...how to combat stagnation and its eventual result, groupthink.

Don't tell her this, but until today, I'd never heard of Kara Swisher.

I followed a link to one of her columns on the site All Things Digital from MediaBistro's daily digest. First I noticed that there are two names on the site: hers, and Walt Mossberg's. Secondly, I found, prominently displayed on the left, a link to her Ethics Statement. Further piquing my interest, the tag before the jump said, "This is probably more than most of you want to know, but...."

Ah, rejoice! I want to know more than most of us want to know! Tell me more!

Swisher, who is a technology writer, proceeded to disclose her relationship with an executive at Google (her wife, which led to a brief acknowledgement of disagreement with California's Proposition 8, effectively repealing same-sex marriage), and the way she manages any potential impact from that relationship. She stated, basically, that she does not accept money from anyone she covers in any way. She referenced her investments and explained that the funds are managed in such a way that while it is possible at any given time that she might own shares of stock in a tech company, she is not aware of those individual purchases.

Essentially, Swisher invaded her own privacy and stated for the records all the things some believe should be assumed. It's not entirely what she said, but that she said it at all.

Like the taboo against discussing salaries (the continued existence of which must be adding just a little more spin to Marx's turns in his grave), I've always felt it's a little silly to take offense at obvious ethical or conflict-of-interest charges that might fall short of the legal line. It might be naive of me, but if one is in the business of providing information others depend on, disclosure of relationships, financial or otherwise, that might affect one's viewpoint, and sharing a few details about how those potentialities will be managed, is both good business and good ethics. No one in the media is presumed innocent until proven guilty any more, even - sometimes especially - its producers. Transparency is vital to the integrity of news.

Is this something that should be business as usual, expected by the public, for anyone proclaiming any level of accuracy and objectivity - a practical, necessary sign of good integrity? Or is it a dangerous precedent for the invasion of privacy and a smear against names wh ich have not yet been attacked?

Some quotes about the media....

Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand of a clock. -- Ben Hecht

Journalism consists largely in saying "Lord Jones died" to people who never knew Lord Jones was alive. -- G. K. Chesterton

[You reporters] should have printed what he meant, not what he said. -- Earl Bush, press aide to Richard Daley

Unfortunately, the media have trouble distinguishing between real science and propaganda cross-dressed as science. -- Linda Bowles, columnist

Its failings notwithstanding, there is much to be said in favor of journalism in that by giving us the opinion of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. -- Oscar Wilde

The difference between literature and journalism is that journalism is unreadable and literature is not read. -- Oscar Wilde

The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands. -- Oscar Wilde

The good people sleep much better at night than the bad people. Of course, the bad people enjoy the waking hours much more. -- Woody Allen

A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation. - H. H. Munro (Saki)

International journalism...sorta

In honor of Bastille Day, an "important time to recall justice and equity," here is a look at some current info on French journalism....

France has three major dailies: Le Monde, Le Figaro, and Libération. Le Monde, which means "The World," is considered the French newspaper of record. It has existed for less than a century, having taken over the format of Le Temps ("The Time") after World War II at the request of Charles de Gaulle. Le Temps was suspended November 30, 1942, after accusations of collaboration with the German occupation. Le Monde went into print on November 19, 1944.

Le Figaro was started as a satirical weekly newspaper in 1826 and evolved into a daily in 1866. It is a conservative paper.

Libération. also known as Libé, is the youngest, founded in 1973 by Sartre (the father of existentialism. And in an eerie domestic arrangement Simone de Beauvoir called "The Family," but that's beside the point). It was originally a leftist paper - where all staff from the editor to the janitor received the same salary - but has moved more to the center-left (and a "normal" pay scale). It's gone through quite a shakeup in the last few years, as it needed money, took on an investor (Edouard Rothschild) who claimed he wouldn't interfere, then said he wouldn't invest more money unless the editor, Serge July (also a co-founder) and Louis Dreyfus (the "directeur général") resigned. A total of close to 150 people have resigned, been laid off, or dismissed since the beginning of Rothschild's involvement.

There are many comparisons between French and American journalism out there. Still an initiate to the world of journalism myself, I was a little surprised to find that comparative journalism is already a sub-field. One practitioner, Rodney Benson, said in an interview with PressThink, " What’s different then is that the journalistic voice in the French press is more overt."

The French press tends to be opinionated and editorial, but Benson praises its mix of "context, interpretation, and judgment" within its dailies - more affordable and widely read than the U.S. opnion magazines - as a vehicle to foster a more truly national debate.

This comparison doesn't go into great depth, but it's a thorough and intriguing analysis of the differences between one American and one French journalist, covering the same event in Russia, who both won their nations' highest prizes (the Pulitzer and the Prix Albert Londres).

Contacts for cash at WaPo?

Proving the relevancy of the academic discipline I'm inventing, a scandal over WaPo (as reported by Truthout.org) has blown up over the last week.

According to a Thursday, July 2nd, Politico article (Washington Post cancels lobbyist event amid uproar), a health lobbyist who received a flier about a fundraising salon provided the flier to journalists because he felt it was a conflict of interest.

The article reports that the flier read, in part: "Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," says the one-page flier. "Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. ... Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders."

Obviously, an instant and major objection is the phrasing "alter the debate." While it's literally true, language like "the right people," "alter the debate," "intimate and exclusive," and finally "$250,000" - the price tag - imply influence peddling, not merely discussion and information sharing.

That aside, is this merely a PR nightmare, or an actual ethics explosion?

In her apology, Weymouth writes "I do believe there is a legitimate way to hold such events."

The Truthout.org article linked above reports that Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a professor at Harvard Business School, disagrees. She argues: "The bottom line, so to speak, is not what was said on the fliers about paying big bucks and getting a seat at Weymouth's dinner table. It is that the fliers were honest about the nature of the offering: contacts for cash."

It seems to boil down to the question of whether or not the event is on the record. Because this dinner would not be, it implied that the journalists of the Washington Post were available for purchase - for officials to pick their brains and influence them without direct reportage, and for lobbyists to use reporters to get to officials. Obviously, this violates the ideal of independent reporting.

Weymouth outlines what she sees as the ethically correct approach: "If our reporters were to participate, there would be no limits on what they could ask. They would have full access to participants and be able to use any information or ideas to further their knowledge and understanding of any issues under discussion. They would not be asked to invite other participants and would serve only as moderators."

The opposing view is that any paid off-the-record access compromises journalistic integrity, because it has journalists entering into a financial arrangement with the people that they are covering.

Kanter, quoted above, said, "Let's hope that the Chinese wall between the news side and the business side doesn't crumble under current intense financial pressure as the industry transforms."

I've tended to argue the opposite - I want it to crumble. I think the mitigated, residual, but influential leakage of business concerns still affects the news as it is reported. I believe that a large and powerful news organization such as the Washington Post is better able to insulate itself from those effects, but that when spillover does happen, it reaches further; and that a smaller organization is impacted by more limited concerns but more likely to be forced to consider them.

I agree with a statement from David Bradley, the owner of Atlantic Media, in an internal memo (as reported by MediaBistro's Fishbowl blog): "The imperative, as I see it, is to rebuild journalism on different financial pillars."

In addition to being succinct, this statement is interesting because of what Atlantic Media does. For six years, the company has hosted off-the-record dinners for a price. The memo quoted was written in response to the WaPo scandal, discussing the issues as he saw them: secrecy, motives, the issue of off-the-record, editorial staff involvement and marketing materials.

He wrote, "As the whole of our enterprise surely knows, the economic foundation beneath journalism is falling away. Ten years ago, 55% of The Atlantic's revenues derived from print advertising. Today, that figure is 29%. I think I will be more comfortable, still, when that dependence falls below 20%. The imperative, as I see it, is to rebuild journalism on different financial pillars. One of them, and not inconsequential to us, is events of all types."

I want it to be possible for people with money to give it to journalists. I really do. And I think that sponsored dinners, if handled correctly, are no more influential than running advertising in news pages...and maybe less. How, though, do we ensure that they are "handled correctly" when the doors are closed?

An aside: a critical Examiner.com opinion piece seems to me to have jumped on the bandwagon facing the wrong way, perceiving the victims to be "the citizens of the District of Columbia," as the planned event did not discuss their civic issues. WaPo has significant national concerns as well as local, and if the Examiner would like to see a better approach to those local civic issues, that's fine - but it has nothing to do with this planned dinner. A significant problem when addressing ethics concerns is exploding the ground. Let's deal with one issue at a time, people.

Sunday, July 5th, Washington Post: Publisher Katharine Weymouth writes letter of apology to readers
Sunday, July 5th, Washington Post: Post Publisher acknowledges mistakes
Monday, July 6th, Politico: WaPo launches internal review

The cradle of the nation

The Fourth of July has always been a quietly powerful holiday for me, with various personal meanings. This year, it took on a new meaning - or more accurately, all the meaning it holds for me coalesced, breaking like a wave inside me as I sat on the huge stone block where the First Amendment is engraved near Constitution Hall in Philadelphia.

It started innocently: a friend mentioned he had to drive someone to the airport on the Fourth, and that he was thinking of going into Philadelphia afterwards.

"You know, because that's where it all started and everything," said my friend, who will, after spending two-thirds of his life in the country with a green card, finally become a citizen this year.

"Ooh!" I said. "That sounds like fun! I've never done that."

Despite having moved to Pennsylvania almost eight years ago (the longest I have ever stayed in one state), and despite visiting it often even before that, I've never actually gone to the city for the Fourth.

My father grew up in the Philadelphia suburbs and because of that, and his family, I've been coming back to this city for my entire life. I clearly remember a trip around age 7 during which I stood inside the Liberty Bell and traced the crack with my finger. Now, I've been told that no one's been allowed to touch the Bell for decades, so maybe it was a full-size replica, or maybe my tour guide broke the rules big time. Or maybe I had a really, really overactive imagination.

But I went to see the Bell on Saturday, and for the first time read the plaque on the outside of the building. A loudspeaker was delivering the message, and it finished as I read. A little kid darted up to the other side of the window where the plaque is and pressed a button, and a delivery in Spanish started. I was unexpectedly and deeply moved.

The trip started as a lark, but as we were taking our first break from walking, sitting on a bench outside a Quaker meetinghouse, four men in extremely realistic colonial costume walked down the path. I smiled at them, startled, then recognized one of them - Benjamin Franklin. I mean, they were all in great costumes, but this man, body, face, and hair, just looked so much like Ben Franklin that it was like he had stepped out of the past.

Now, Ben Franklin is kind of my hero. He started with nothing to speak of. He showed up in Philadelphia as a starving, broke runaway. He had a year of formal schooling and a few years' experience in a print shop. He was a printer, an entrepreneur, an editor, and a community organizer. He started a hospital, a library, a fire company, a university, an insurance company, and a society of learning - most of these being innovative social contributions, the first of their kinds in the country, or at least in Philadelphia. He had great talent with science as well, which he turned to increasingly after about the age of 40. He refused to take out a patent for the Franklin stove, he said he would never run for public office, although he would take any office offered him, and he was already 50 years old when he started his career in diplomacy. Originally loyal to England, he thought of moving there permanently, but as his knowledge of corruption in the country grew, he started wondering if America should break away.

He was one of the original investigative reporters, discovering letters from a two-faced politician and sending them to the colonies to be published (in the Hutchinson affair). He contributed much or most of the thinking behind the Declaration of Independence. He was seventy when he signed it.

He was the Ambassador to France, where he helped pave the way for the French Revolution. Always ahead of himself, by the time it actually occurred, he was already back in America, writing an anti-slavery treatise.

My father assigned his autobiography to me when I was being home schooled, and he's fascinated me ever since. Any flaws aside, I think he is one of the most remarkable men ever to have lived, with one of the most remarkable minds in the history of humanity.

Seeing my childhood hero in the flesh - so to speak - gave me a sense of wonder that underlined my feeling of connection to Philadelphia, and to Independence Day. Later I found the actor outside Independence Hall and got a picture with him, which made me feel incredibly obnoxious and touristy.

Independence Day represents everything that means the most to me - liberty, equality, freedom, true justice. It's the meaning of my life, really. It's why I'm here - to understand the meaning of those ideals, to protect people who are threatened with losing them, and to help them learn to understand them and protect them in turn. I'm grateful to the people who have died for them, but I want to live for them.

In capitalist America, business buys you!

In accepting the Lawrence Minard Editor Award, a Loeb award, Ingrassia, the business and financial editor at the New York Times, said that the current era hearkens "back to the 1930's, not because we're in a depression, but because it's increasingly incumbent on the press to be the watchdog."

This is yet another connection between news and the study of ethics. For every law, there has to be a regulatory agency to ensure it is enforced. And regulatory agencies can't catch everything. The news is the public's guard, or should be. It not only ferrets out some wrongdoing through investigative journalism, but publicizes the consequences.

It's true that publicity can hurt; for instance, it can increase a kidnap victim's value, which was part of the motive in suppressing the news about David Rohde. It can also encourage copycat crimes. However, Madoff's sentence of 150 years, for example, lets potential white collar criminals know what they might be able to expect.

We need the news. And we need to trust our news source. Ethics is a necessary part of journalism, and we must find a way to operate our business, before it goes any further in operating us.