Today's surprise announcement that New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson was departing was not completely out of the blue.
There had been some past reports of disagreement in the newsroom over her work.
Interestingly, she had made clear she had already given much of the day-to-day oversight to managing editor Dean Baquet, who will replace her.
She told me in 2011:
"I've given him broad authority over the daily news report," Abramson said of Baquet, former Times Washington bureau chief and past editor of the Los Angeles Times. "I don't go to the front page meeting in the afternoon. I think I'm the first executive editor who hasn't.
"We
have a morning meeting at 10 where we pick likely stories for the front
page. And that meeting is more focused on what's leading our home page
and when certain stories are coming in. It's a good meeting for me, it
gives me the lay of the land in terms of what the most important news
events of the day are and what our best enterprise journalism is. But I
let Dean lead. ... Dean is the most senior editor in charge."
As for Baquet, this marks his second stint as top editor of a major newspaper. He led the Los Angeles Times before being dismissed in 2006 shortly after a critical speech at the Associated Press Managing Editors conference in his hometown of New Orleans.
I detailed that departure in a 2006 profile of Baquet and his brother, Terry, a veteran editor at the Times-Picayune in New Orleans.
Interesting that Abramson was the first woman executive editor of the Times and Baquet becomes the first African-American executive editor of the grey lady. He also served as the first such editor at the Los Angeles Times.
Whatever the newsroom management issues at play here, it is certainly a tough time for anyone to run a major daily paper, especially the Times, which many consider the best in the country. Still, it cannot be what it used to be with cutbacks, revenue problems and the same financial hits ever paper is taking.
Stay tuned to see why this happened and what it means for the paper's future.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Monday, May 5, 2014
WHAT'S UP AT 60 MINUTES?
Two interesting things to note today about 60 Minutes, which has had a tough time with its image in recent months.
Of course, a big part of their problem was the flawed report last fall that included claims from a former security contractor about events surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya.
It turned out the contractor, Dylan Davies, had lied about most of what he claimed and had actually given different accounts to government investigators.
Media Matters did a lot on the story at the time and named CBS News our "Misinformer of the Year" for 2013.
New York magazine is out with a big story on that issue today, which also asks if correspondent Lara Logan will ever return to 60 Minutes. It also has a lot of internal views of the situation.
This follows another strange 60 Minutes piece last night, a story on BP complaining about how it is supposedly being treated unfairly in the settlement agreements it made after its deadly explosion and oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico four years ago.
The piece does little to really show how BP's complaints, which have included many full-page New York Times ads whining about having to pay up, hurt BP's image or appear petty. It also does little to show that such fraud is not unusual in these cases, or say anything about the 11 people who died in the disaster.
Of course, a big part of their problem was the flawed report last fall that included claims from a former security contractor about events surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya.
It turned out the contractor, Dylan Davies, had lied about most of what he claimed and had actually given different accounts to government investigators.
Media Matters did a lot on the story at the time and named CBS News our "Misinformer of the Year" for 2013.
New York magazine is out with a big story on that issue today, which also asks if correspondent Lara Logan will ever return to 60 Minutes. It also has a lot of internal views of the situation.
This follows another strange 60 Minutes piece last night, a story on BP complaining about how it is supposedly being treated unfairly in the settlement agreements it made after its deadly explosion and oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico four years ago.
The piece does little to really show how BP's complaints, which have included many full-page New York Times ads whining about having to pay up, hurt BP's image or appear petty. It also does little to show that such fraud is not unusual in these cases, or say anything about the 11 people who died in the disaster.
Friday, May 2, 2014
WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS DINNER IS NOT ABOUT CELEBS, IT'S ABOUT NEWS
It's that time of year again, yet another White House Correspondents Association dinner about to take place tomorrow night. But this year seems to be getting less attention than in the past, and an apparent focus away from the celebrity guests.
WHCA President Steve Thomma, the veteran McClatchy scribe, says there is an effort to focus on news people and said there will be some tributes based on the fact it's the 100th anniversary of the WHCA.
The dinner's opening video will focus on the reporters' relationship with the president, along with a tribute to the first African-American reporter to cover a presidential press conference, Harry S. McAlpin, who broke the color barrier 70 years ago.
There is some great history on the organization and nostalgic photos at the group's website HERE.
I was lucky to attend two such dinners, in 2006 and 2007, when Stephen Colbert and Rich Little hosted, respectively. The 2006 dinner also had the great George W. Bush surprise double address when impersonator Steve Bridges joined Bush on the stage.
One of the funniest addresses was not by a president or a comedian, but by Laura Bush, who brought down the house in 2005 when she took the mic and ripped into him with good humor.
This year, a name you may not know well, Joel McHale, is the comedic voice. Curious how he rolls? Check him out HERE.
Of course the real event is often not the dinner, but the before and after parties where I rubbed shoulders with the likes of George Clooney, Michael Strahan, Laurence Fishburn and Tommy Lasorda. Will be interesting to see who shows up this year and if in fact there is less of a celebrity presence.
One interesting incident I observed firsthand was in 2007 when Karl Rove got into a heated match with singer Sheryl Crowe after Crowe and her pal, Laurie David (wife of TV funnyman Larry David) urged him to rethink his stand on global warming.
After the dust settled, I asked Rove how he was doing, he said he was enjoying it all "if I can get to my meal." Oddly, he was seated at The New York Times table. The Times does not even attend the dinner any more, finding it creates a conflict of interest.
The truth is the real meaning of the night, often forgotten, is the raising of money for journalism scholarships, something more important than who attends or who they are wearing.
WHCA President Steve Thomma, the veteran McClatchy scribe, says there is an effort to focus on news people and said there will be some tributes based on the fact it's the 100th anniversary of the WHCA.
The dinner's opening video will focus on the reporters' relationship with the president, along with a tribute to the first African-American reporter to cover a presidential press conference, Harry S. McAlpin, who broke the color barrier 70 years ago.
There is some great history on the organization and nostalgic photos at the group's website HERE.
I was lucky to attend two such dinners, in 2006 and 2007, when Stephen Colbert and Rich Little hosted, respectively. The 2006 dinner also had the great George W. Bush surprise double address when impersonator Steve Bridges joined Bush on the stage.
One of the funniest addresses was not by a president or a comedian, but by Laura Bush, who brought down the house in 2005 when she took the mic and ripped into him with good humor.
This year, a name you may not know well, Joel McHale, is the comedic voice. Curious how he rolls? Check him out HERE.
Of course the real event is often not the dinner, but the before and after parties where I rubbed shoulders with the likes of George Clooney, Michael Strahan, Laurence Fishburn and Tommy Lasorda. Will be interesting to see who shows up this year and if in fact there is less of a celebrity presence.
One interesting incident I observed firsthand was in 2007 when Karl Rove got into a heated match with singer Sheryl Crowe after Crowe and her pal, Laurie David (wife of TV funnyman Larry David) urged him to rethink his stand on global warming.
After the dust settled, I asked Rove how he was doing, he said he was enjoying it all "if I can get to my meal." Oddly, he was seated at The New York Times table. The Times does not even attend the dinner any more, finding it creates a conflict of interest.
The truth is the real meaning of the night, often forgotten, is the raising of money for journalism scholarships, something more important than who attends or who they are wearing.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
JON STEWART AGAIN SETS THE RECORD STRIGHT
Jon Stewart gives right back to Sean Hannity and his misleading Cliven Bundy support.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
NEVADA RANCHER: THE REAL STORY
The classic national media parachute story that has gotten misreported on too many counts has to be the ongoing saga of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy.
As you likely know, Bundy is claiming the federal Bureau of Land Management is unfairly evicting him from federal land upon which his cattle graze.
What few are noting, and Bundy somehow is forgetting, is that he has been grazing on the federal land for more than 20 years without paying grazing fees, the same fees his neighbors and many others pay to allow their animals to graze. He simply stopped in 1993 and is now being evicted.
But for some reason, much of this is ignored by national media, Fox News among them. They see Bundy as some kind of folk hero and do not seem to care that armed militia members have taken up defense positions on his land near Mesquite, NV. to block federal authorities.
Sean Hannity, who once ran away from me when I asked him a question at a radio conference, is chief among the biased media on Bundy. He recently sought to criticize Jon Stewart for pointing out Hannity's misrepresentation of the facts on Bundy, and did a poor job of it.
If this was some tenant who was being evicted for not paying his rent, imagine the reaction if armed militia came to his door to oppose the local sheriff forcing his removal. No one would stand for that as a valid defense.
I pride myself on trying to see both sides of any story and appreciate when a good, solid legal dispute is being examined. But this falls short.
By all accounts there is no "other side" of this story, despite what Fox News seems to think in its defense of Bundy.
I spoke with local Nevada journalists last week and they all agreed the story is that Bundy is breaking the law. Any news outlet that reports otherwise is not doing its job.
Sadly, this seems to occur more often with a national press, and a conservative media, that either do a poor job of reporting because of laziness or a slanted job because of political bias.
As you likely know, Bundy is claiming the federal Bureau of Land Management is unfairly evicting him from federal land upon which his cattle graze.
What few are noting, and Bundy somehow is forgetting, is that he has been grazing on the federal land for more than 20 years without paying grazing fees, the same fees his neighbors and many others pay to allow their animals to graze. He simply stopped in 1993 and is now being evicted.
But for some reason, much of this is ignored by national media, Fox News among them. They see Bundy as some kind of folk hero and do not seem to care that armed militia members have taken up defense positions on his land near Mesquite, NV. to block federal authorities.
Sean Hannity, who once ran away from me when I asked him a question at a radio conference, is chief among the biased media on Bundy. He recently sought to criticize Jon Stewart for pointing out Hannity's misrepresentation of the facts on Bundy, and did a poor job of it.
If this was some tenant who was being evicted for not paying his rent, imagine the reaction if armed militia came to his door to oppose the local sheriff forcing his removal. No one would stand for that as a valid defense.
I pride myself on trying to see both sides of any story and appreciate when a good, solid legal dispute is being examined. But this falls short.
By all accounts there is no "other side" of this story, despite what Fox News seems to think in its defense of Bundy.
I spoke with local Nevada journalists last week and they all agreed the story is that Bundy is breaking the law. Any news outlet that reports otherwise is not doing its job.
Sadly, this seems to occur more often with a national press, and a conservative media, that either do a poor job of reporting because of laziness or a slanted job because of political bias.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
JOURNALISM, HOWARD STERN AND THE ANTI-SEMITIC KILLER
Anyone who has known me for a while knows that I have long railed against those who seek to judge and comment on journalism but do not know how journalism is done.
News, at least in the proper form, is the examination of facts and issues that are either interesting, important or unusual to an audience.
In many cases this includes shining a light on the extreme, even hateful, offensive and dangerous. To interview someone such as the self-described anti-Jewish alleged killer Frazier Glenn Miller and expose his hatred is an important aspect of coverage in the wake of the horrible criminal act he is accused of perpetrating.
The key is to find out how and why he has taken the extremist views he has. This does not mean that a journalist agrees with him or wants to promote those views. A good news person wants to find the facts and report them, and when those facts need to be questioned and challenged, engage in that as well.
And to write a story, as Rolling Stone did last year, about what led the Boston Marathon suspects to commit their horrible bombings is also important journalism. As criminologists seek to find motives and causes of crime, reporters must seek to find them as well.
So when Variety's Brian Lowry this week criticizes Howard Stern of all people for having Miller on his radio show years ago while he was a candidate for U.S. Senate, he misses the point.
Yes, Stern is more of a comedic entertainer than a journalist. But if anyone has ever heard him conduct an interview, they know he is one of the best. From Dan Rather to Lady Gaga, Stern has had a knack for getting interview subjects to open up and speak honestly about everything from sex to parental abuse to money.
In the Miller interview, Stern gave listeners a good insight into his hateful rhetoric, including Miller calling Hitler "the greatest man to ever walk the earth." That showed how evil and dangerous Miller was. And he did so without supporting Miller and actually exposing him.
Sure, he did it in a comedic way, which is his approach, but he and others who have had Miller on, such as Alan Colmes and filmmaker Sasha Baron Cohen, do a service by showing how horrible he is, not supporting him.
As Stern noted on his show today, other broadcast veterans from Phil Donahue to Oprah Winfrey have had their share of racists, child abusers, and other disreputable guests. But if they are on to show the world how they got that why or why they are dangerous, it is effective journalism.
Donahue once even had leaders of NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association on. Clearly a group without any defensible positions, but in a forum that showed how they think and why they exist -- clearly an important element in seeking to stop such activities and prevent them from occurring.
If news people want to really do their jobs, then exposing the truth behind Miller, the Boston bombers or any other criminal is an important aspect.
News, at least in the proper form, is the examination of facts and issues that are either interesting, important or unusual to an audience.
In many cases this includes shining a light on the extreme, even hateful, offensive and dangerous. To interview someone such as the self-described anti-Jewish alleged killer Frazier Glenn Miller and expose his hatred is an important aspect of coverage in the wake of the horrible criminal act he is accused of perpetrating.
The key is to find out how and why he has taken the extremist views he has. This does not mean that a journalist agrees with him or wants to promote those views. A good news person wants to find the facts and report them, and when those facts need to be questioned and challenged, engage in that as well.
And to write a story, as Rolling Stone did last year, about what led the Boston Marathon suspects to commit their horrible bombings is also important journalism. As criminologists seek to find motives and causes of crime, reporters must seek to find them as well.
So when Variety's Brian Lowry this week criticizes Howard Stern of all people for having Miller on his radio show years ago while he was a candidate for U.S. Senate, he misses the point.
Yes, Stern is more of a comedic entertainer than a journalist. But if anyone has ever heard him conduct an interview, they know he is one of the best. From Dan Rather to Lady Gaga, Stern has had a knack for getting interview subjects to open up and speak honestly about everything from sex to parental abuse to money.
In the Miller interview, Stern gave listeners a good insight into his hateful rhetoric, including Miller calling Hitler "the greatest man to ever walk the earth." That showed how evil and dangerous Miller was. And he did so without supporting Miller and actually exposing him.
Sure, he did it in a comedic way, which is his approach, but he and others who have had Miller on, such as Alan Colmes and filmmaker Sasha Baron Cohen, do a service by showing how horrible he is, not supporting him.
As Stern noted on his show today, other broadcast veterans from Phil Donahue to Oprah Winfrey have had their share of racists, child abusers, and other disreputable guests. But if they are on to show the world how they got that why or why they are dangerous, it is effective journalism.
Donahue once even had leaders of NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association on. Clearly a group without any defensible positions, but in a forum that showed how they think and why they exist -- clearly an important element in seeking to stop such activities and prevent them from occurring.
If news people want to really do their jobs, then exposing the truth behind Miller, the Boston bombers or any other criminal is an important aspect.
Monday, April 14, 2014
TODAY'S PULITZER PRIZE ANNOUNCEMENT STILL A BIG DEAL
The truth is that as the winning names are announced today, at 3 p.m. as always, the word that some wonderful journalism is getting its due means even more at a time when so much inaccurate, badly reported and poorly resourced "news" is coming out.
The Pulitzers remain the most prestigious awards in the business, and the most difficult to obtain. With just 14 winners in 14 categories, the prizes are few and far between for many. They are also limited only to newspapers and, in recent years, certain news websites.
No broadcast, cable or magazine outlet can win a Pulitzer. And the 19-person Pulitzer Board has immense power to choose who can win, and in which category. Finalists are not announced basically because they are not necessarily finalists until the board chooses winners.
The board can move finalists around, pull in submissions that were never finalists, or choose multiple winners. And, as it has done, the board can also declare no winner in a certain category.
For several years at E&P, I was lucky enough to be able to track down and report on the finalists, a situation that has dwindled as security is much tighter among the juries that choose the finalists. People still reach out to me seeking the finalists.
Even with technology that will allow the winners to be known via Twitter, email and other instant sources, there is still something of a tradition when the winners are unveiled inside the World Room on the third floor of Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism in upper Manhattan.
There is still something about being in that historic place where Pulitzer Administrator Sig Gissler (who will retire after this year) hands out the package of winners and describes them as "changing some lives forever."
He's right, for as they say, when you win a Pulitzer Prize, it becomes the first line of your obituary, forever dubbed "Pulitzer-prize winner." Google that phrase and see how many names pop up, but at the same time, how few as it remains a special accomplishment.
Today's winners will be of interest as we see how many are from the big guns - The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times or Associated Press -- and how many are from small dailies, and even weeklies. The likes of the Point Reyes (CA.) Light, Willamette Week and the The Daily Gazette of Xenia, OH., have each won the coveted award since the first ones were presented in 1917.
And then there are the websites, from Politico to ProPublica, who have added a new dimension to this historic but vibrant award.
Speculation has already begun about how the awards will handle the Boston Marathon bombing coverage and the tricky subject of Edward Snowden, whose leaked documents have been fodder for numerous major stories, and numerous ethical discussions.
And will The Wall Street Journal -- which has 37 Pulitzers to its credit -- ever win another reporting Pulitzer? It has none since Rupert Murdoch took over in 2007.
We will soon see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)