INDY STAR DEMANDS HOOSIER LAWMAKERS FIX THE 'MESS' THEY'VE MADE WITH ANTI-GAY LAW

The Indianapolis Star today boldly went where newspapers rarely go.

Under the headline "FIX THIS NOW," the newspaper published a full-front-page editorial calling on Gov. Mike Pence and the Indiana General Assembly to move immediately to undo the damage that has been done to the state's reputation and the already evident damage to the state's economy caused by Indiana's newly adopted Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The placement, the content and the clarity of the editorial can leave no doubt in anyone's mind where the newspaper stands. Here is a link to the well-written, easy to understand editorial: http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2015/03/30/editorial-gov-pence-fix-religious-freedom-law-now/70698802/.

The law -- which, despite statements to the contrary by Gov. Pence and the other key Republican lawmakers in the state who pushed for its passage -- encourages, enables and legalizes discrimination against gay people under the thin guise of protecting business owners' rights to refuse them services based on the religious beliefs of those business owners. Simply put, the law endorses bigotry and, to my way of thinking, is a total violation of the intent -- if not the specific wording -- of the federal government's Civil Rights Act of 1965 which bans all forms of discrimination.

Almost immediately after Pence signed the RFRA into law on March 26, the Hoosier state found itself the focal point of a storm of controversy and protests that have gone far beyond the outcries of just the LGBT community.

Businesses such as Walmart, Apple and Salesforce and, even more importantly, the homegrown, Indianapolis-based pharmaceuticals maker Eli Lilly lodged strong condemnations of the new law. Saleforce, a large and growing cloud computing company, even put some serious teeth in its protest by immediately cancelling all of it's already scheduled events in Indiana.

Other national organizations, such as AFSCME (American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees), condemned the law and began cancelling conventions and other events scheduled in the state -- particularly in Indianapolis which stands to suffer millions of dollars worth of economic damage. AFSCME immediately withdrew its national Women's Conference which was scheduled to take place in Indianapolis this year and said the event will be moved to another state where is members need not worry about being discriminated against. In a statement released shortly after Pence sign the law, Lee Saunders, the union's president, said "This un-American law allowing businesses to refuse service to gay and lesbian customers sets Indiana and our nation back decades in the struggle for civil rights. It is an embarrassment and cannot be tolerated."

A wide variety of entertainers cancelled show they'd scheduled in the Hoosier state and even the NCAA, which is based in Indianapolis, briefly considered moving the men's basketball Final Four which is to take place in the city this weekend. Although NCAA officials decided it would not really be feasible to try the move the Final Four location on such short notice, they did threaten to not only decline to schedule future events in the state, but also to move the national headquarter elsewhere.

Then, yesterday, Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard, who had spoken out against the law numerous times before its passage and warned of the adverse impact it would have on the state's reputation and economy, came out with his strongest public condemnation of it. Here is a link to the coverage of Ballard's press conference by the NBC affiliate Indianapolis TV station WTHR, Channel 13: http://www.wthr.com/story/28652260/indianapolis-mayor-greg-ballard-denounces-religious-freedom-law.

This morning's Indianapolis Star front page is the perfect punctuation point for what Ballard had to say yesterday.

The editorial opens saying:

"We are at a critical moment in Indiana's history.

And much is at stake.

Our image. Our reputation as a state that embraces people of diverse backgrounds and makes them feel welcome. And our efforts over many years to retool our economy, to attract talented workers and thriving businesses, and to improve the quality of life for millions of Hoosiers.

All of this is at risk because of a new law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that no matter its original intent already has done enormous harm to our state and potentially our economic future.

The consequences will only get worse if our state leaders delay in fixing the deep mess created.

Half steps will not be enough. Half steps will not undo the damage."

The editorial goes on to demand in no uncertain terms that the governor and state lawmakers move to immediately shore up the damage by passing a state law "to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, education and public accommodations on the basis of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity." The editorial says that such a human rights law, which would be similar to an Indianapolis city ordinance adopted a decade ago, could coexist with the RFRA, making an obviously contentious and drawn out attempt to repeal it unnecessary.

"Only bold action -- action that sends an unmistakable message to the world that our state will not tolerate discrimination against any of its citizens -- will be enough to reverse the damage," the editorial contends.

In closing, the editorial states:

"We urge Gov. Pence and lawmakers to stop clinging to arguments about whether RFRA really does what critics fear; to stop clinging to ideology or personal preferences; to focus instead on fixing this.

Governor, Indiana is in a state of crisis. It is worse than you seem to understand.

You must act with courage and wisdom. You must lead us forward now. You must ensure that all Hoosiers have strong protections against discrimination.

The laws can co-exist. And so can we."

As someone who grew up in Indiana and is giving serious thought to moving back there when my wife, Gail, joins me in retirement, I thank and commend The Indianapolis Star for it's strong and well-reasoned stand against discrimination in any form.

And, as the retired editor of daily newspapers, I fully understand the courage it took for the Star's editors and publisher to write and/or approve this strong stand and to defy convention by making it the paper's full front page under a straight forward, no-nonsense headline.

-30-

If you enjoy reading my blog, please share it and its link with your friends and colleagues.

********

I sure would appreciate if you'd consider subscribing to or following the blog. It's easy to do and there are several options for doing so. If you look on the right side rail, you'll see the "Subscribe to" buttons and a "Subscribe by email" button. Just click any of those and follow the instructions. If you are a Google+ user you can click on the "Follow" button right under my profile picture and follow the instructions. Or, you can click on the "Google+ Add to Circles" button next to my photo and add me to your circles and get notifications of new blog entries when I post them. Thanks for giving this consideration.

As always, your thoughts and/or comments are welcomed.

HOSTS OF FOX NEWS' "OUTNUMBERED" UN-AMERICAN FOR URGING CITIZENS TO NOT VOTE

OK, I'll admit it right at the outset -- I aggressively avoid watching Fox News. I also avoid, but to a lesser degree, watching much of what's on MSNBC.

I guess I am one of those old-fashioned U.S. journalists/editors who just can't grow accustomed to a supposedly "professional" news organization engaging almost exclusively in point-of-view "news" reporting and presentation.

So, to find out what's going on those two networks, I pretty much rely on some of the websites that I trust and regularly visit, one of which is mediamatters.org, the website for Media Matters for America, my favorite site for watchdogging and being enraged over what Fox News is doing.

In the two years that I've been writing this blog, I have seldom referred to Media Matters or made mention of the things for which it criticizes Fox News. In large part, that has been because, after all these years, few of the outrageous things that are "reported" by or discussed on Fox News truly surprise me anymore. This is because I realize everything they do and say comes strictly from a right-wing perspective and, as I have freely acknowledged before, I consider myself a liberal.

However, Media Matters yesterday (Thursday, March 19, 2015) reported on something that came up on the Fox program "Outnumbered," that I find so disturbing that I just have to say something.

I was frankly flabbergasted to learn that the show's hosts spent a segment of their program on March 19 actually urging people to NOT vote. This was done in response to President Barrack Obama's recent speech in Cleveland in which he said it would be "transformative" if every eligible voter in the United States actually turned out to cast his or her ballot. Here is Media Matters' link to that Fox "Outnumbered" segment: http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/03/19/outnumbered-hosts-tell-unengaged-americans-plea/202964

Although there has been a rush by some media outlets -- particularly Fox -- to twist what the president said into him calling for "mandatory voting," that's not what he did.

What he DID do was mention that in numerous countries, voting is mandatory and then went on to say that in the United States "it would be transformative if everybody voted" as a means of countering the wave of corporate and billionaire dollars that have flowed into political coffers in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. That action by SCOTUS lifted the limits on campaign contributions made by corporations and individuals -- a decision that has left many, including me, feeling that elections in this country are now basically a commodity for sale.

From a personal standpoint, I would be just as opposed to any effort to make voting mandatory as I am to the Citizens United decision, neither of which is what democracy is all about.

I do, however, believe that it is every U.S. citizens responsibility and duty to vote because the right to vote is what has kept our democracy in tact for more than two centuries and is the key to its continuation.

Throughout my career as the editor of a daily newspaper in several different cities, I wrote an editorial for every election calling on people to get out and vote, pointing that the anyone who doesn't do so essentially surrenders his or her right to later bitch about the results of that election or about those who are elected. I was not alone in this. Every other editor I knew wrote, or had their editorial writers write, similar editorials for every election because we all realized that voting is an important part of maintaining freedom of the press.

This is why I am particularly dismayed that the nitwits (yeah, there, I said it) on "Outnumbered" had the audacity to suggest that people not vote. OK, to be more specific, they quite lamely called for people who are "not engaged" to not vote. Sorry, but that is not the answer -- especially since I suspect that what they really mean is that anyone who is not "engaged" in believing what Fox News wants them to believe and might not cast a vote that has the Fox News seal of approval should not vote.

If Fox was a what I would describe -- in my old-fashioned ways and thought mode -- as a valid news organization, those hosts of "Outnumbered" would have urged people, regardless of their political persuasion, to become engaged, to learn what the issues are and where candidates stood on them and then get their lazy, apathetic butts to the polls and vote for the candidates who best represent their interests.

In my view, to urge anything else is thoroughly and blatantly un-American.

-30-

********

If you enjoy reading my blog, please share it and its link with your friends and colleagues.

********

I sure would appreciate if you'd consider subscribing to or following the blog. It's easy to do and there are several options for doing so. If you look on the right side rail, you'll see the "Subscribe to" buttons and a "Subscribe by email" button. Just click any of those and follow the instructions. If you are a Google+ user you can click on the "Follow" button right under my profile picture and follow the instructions. Or, you can click on the "Google+ Add to Circles" button next to my photo and add me to your circles and get notifications of new blog entries when I post them. Thanks for giving this consideration.

As always, your thoughts and/or comments are welcomed.

ALLEGED DRUNK DRIVER'S ACCIDENT WITH SCHOOL BUS LEAVES LOTS OF QUESTIONS FOR RIO GRANDE VALLEY MEDIA OUTLETS TO ANSWER

On the bottom right hand corner of Page 3B in this morning's edition of The Monitor in McAllen, Texas, and on the newspaper's website, www.themonitor.com, is a story that should be garnering a lot more local media attention than it apparently has so far.

The story involves Alexander Correa, 23, of Edinburg, one of McAllen's numerous neighboring cities, who, on Monday morning, plowed into the back of a school bus with, according to the newspaper report, 10 students on board. Fortunately, no students were injured.

If that was all there was to the story, it, frankly, wouldn't be all that big of a deal. Accidents in which there are no injuries, even ones involving school buses, happen everyday and most go without so much as a passing mention in the media.

But this accident was not that simple because police ended up arresting Correa on charges of driving while intoxicated -- his sixth such charge in less than two years, the paper reported. Here is the link to the story posted at 7:16 p.m. on Wednesday on The Monitor's website: http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/edinburg-man-gets-sixth-dwi-in-years-after-crashing-into/article_fd0f16f4-c2d5-11e4-85e7-177a259d7b63.html.

The story was reported earlier in the day by the area's English-language Fox affiliate TV station KXFV, which even had video of Correa's arraignment in Edinburg Municipal Court before Judge Terry Palacios. Here is a link to that report: http://www.foxrio2.com/repeat-drunk-driver-slams-into-bus-filled-with-middle-school-children/.

To their credit, The Monitor and KXFV were, as of 8:30 CST this morning (Thursday, Mar. 5, 2015), the only area news outlets reporting this story.

I suspect that by the end of the day, this could wind up being the news story that is the most talked about by Rio Grande Valley residence once the news departments at the area's other English-language TV stations -- KRGV, KGBT and KVEO -- finally get around to looking at The Monitor's Page 3B and KXFV's website and begin playing catch up.

I hope that all of the local media take out after this story the way they should and don't -- as is so often the case here and in far too many other communities around the nation -- just let it drop until Correa's trial, which may or may not be covered live by any of the local media outlets.

My old friend, Bill Marimow, editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer, alerted me to a story his paper published in September that could serve as a great guide for Rio Grande Valley media to follow if they want to do a high impact followup story on this accident. The Inky story deals with Pennsylvania's pretty abysmal record for keeping repeat drunk drivers off the roads. Here is the link: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140907_Despite_tougher_Pa__DUI_laws__many_repeat_offenders_stay_on_the_road.html

Hopefully, The Monitor, or one or all of the TV stations, will very quickly follow up by giving the details of Correa's other five DWI cases, one of which was dismissed and the other four of which are yet to be adjudicated. The Monitor's and KXFV's reports mentioned the other cases but gave no details regarding when they occurred,  where they occurred, what was involved or where exactly they stand in the judicial process.

Beyond that, there are still many questions to be answered with regard to this incident, which I am still rather surprised was not played at least on the front of the Valley & State (B) section of The Monitor.

I think the question that will be most on the minds of those area residents who take note of the story is why in the world Correa, with five prior DWI arrests, continues to have driving privileges. That's an important question that must be put to the area law enforcement agencies that have arrested him and to the judges and prosecutors who are handling, or in the past have handled, the cases against him.

Jeff Allen Lindau, who commented on the story on The Monitor's website quite rightfully and fairly said, "the media could probably trace the reasons this person is still driving and hasn't been convicted on any of his previous 5 charges of DWI. The question is will they get to the bottom and expose it?"

In another comment on the story, Lindau said: "All one has to do is research DWI's in Hidalgo County and you'll see our county has one of the highest rates of DWI incidents with one of the state's lowest rates for prosecuting DWI offenders. The local media half heartedly has looked into these numbers in the past but never fully held the DA's office accountable." Although he is substantially correct, Lindau failed to mention that the area's judges who handle drunk driving cases should perhaps be held even more accountable than area prosecutors since, in the final analysis, it is up to them to determine the punishments handed out to first- and multiple-time DWI offenders.

Lindau is also on point with his offhanded bash at the local media for only "half heartedly" looking into the drunk-driving issue in the Rio Grande Valley, where it seems to be a serious problem considering the number stories on DWI accidents, many involving multiple injuries and fatalities, that are reported here every year by The Monitor and area TV stations.

As much as I hate to admit it, even I have to plead guilty to Lindau's charge of media half-hearted reporting on the area's drunk driving problem.

There were several times during my nearly 12 years as editor of The Monitor -- usually after a particularly horrendous DWI accident -- that I considered having my reporters launch a full-scale examination into how drunk driving cases are handled, or mishandled, in the Rio Grande Valley, but failed, for whatever excuse, to not follow up on.

In retrospect, I consider myself particularly remiss in not having done so since I had considerable experience with such projects at papers where I had previously worked. As the courts reporter for The Louisville (Ky.) Times in the early 70s I produced a several-day series of stories on lenient handling of DWI cases by judges in the area's municipal courts. As managing editor of The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss.; and later The Cincinnati Post; and then as editor of The State Journal-Register, in Springfield, Ill., I directed examinations of how drunk-driving cases were handled by the courts and even identified the top 10 to 20 repeat DWI offenders in those cities. In fact, our drunk-driving series at The State Journal-Register resulted in me being invited to speak at that year's national convention of Mother Against Drunk Driving (MAAD) in Washington, D.C.

I urge my former area media colleagues to not follow my lead. Don't let this opportunity to take a serious look at how the many drunk driving cases are handled by the judicial systems in the Rio Grande Valley. Let this case be the impetus for an in-depth look into the issue by one or all of our area media outlets because lives are at stake and law enforcement, prosecutorial and judicial feet should and must be held to the fire and repeat offenders, in particular, need to be exposed and prevented from killing themselves and/or innocent potential victims.

Thanks to the expansion of computerized record keeping by area courts, the task should be much easier now than it was in the past, when reporters had to go through the tedious task of reviewing hundreds of pages of sometimes handwritten court dockets to identify and track such cases. That's the upside.

The downside is that due to the fees public agencies are allowed to collect under Texas law, accessing those records could cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars -- a factor that has put a serious crimp in investigative reporting by all but the state largest newspapers and television stations.

That considered The Monitor and one or more of the local TV stations might want to think about joining forces to not only devote the sort of reportorial resources need to produce a meaningful and game-changing examination of the issue, but also to share and defray the costs of the undertaking. As leery as I am of the concept (see my Feb. 13, 2015 post "NEWSPAPER ETHICS: MAINTAINING (OR NOT) THE LINE BETWEEN DOLLARS AND SENSE) this might just be one of those rare instances when one or more media outlets might consider seeking crowdfunding from readers and/or viewers to help finance a project that is -- or certainly should be -- a matter of significant public concern.

-30-

********

If you enjoy reading my blog, please share it and its link with your friends and colleagues.

********

I sure would appreciate if you'd consider subscribing to or following the blog. It's easy to do and there are several options for doing so. If you look on the right side rail, you'll see the "Subscribe to" buttons and a "Subscribe by email" button. Just click any of those and follow the instructions. If you are a Google+ user you can click on the "Follow" button right under my profile picture and follow the instructions. Or, you can click on the "Google+ Add to Circles" button next to my photo and add me to your circles and get notifications of new blog entries when I post them. Thanks for giving this consideration.

As always, your thoughts and/or comments are welcomed.

BILL O'REILLY IS A PROPAGANDIST -- WE EXPECT HIM TO LIE AND HE'S QUITE ACCOMPLISHED AT IT

My old friend media-blogger, journalism-educator and digital-media-advocate Steve Butty does an excellent job in his latest blog post of analyzing the current public swirl around the war "experience" lies told by now-suspended NBC News Anchor Brian Williams and Fox News "pundit" Bill O'Reilly.

The post on his blog, The Buttry Diary, is headlined "WHY BRIAN WILLIAMS' LIES MATTER AND BILL O'REILLY'S MAY NOT. I highly recommend that you read it yourself and save me a lot of extra verbiage by trying to clumsily encapsulate it for you. Here is the link: https://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/why-brian-williams-lies-matter-and-bill-oreillys-may-not/.

In typical Buttry fashion, the post is extremely thoughtful, well researched and well balanced. Its conclusions are hard to ague with unless you are a Fox News executive or one of the network's mindless right-wing minions and apologists. Almost needless to say, I thoroughly agree with Steve's analysis.

However, it seems to me that he expends a whole lot of words to point out that the real difference between Brian Williams' and Bill O'Reilly's war experience lies rests in their media functions.

Brian Williams is a real journalist and news anchor for a still highly respected news organization. Everyone expects -- and has a right to expect -- that he always tells the truth in his reportage.

However, no one with any sense seriously considers O'Reilly a real reporter or journalist. What he is is a propagandist pundit, all of whom we KNOW are liars -- it's their job. And in O'Reilly's case, for better or for worse, it's a job he's proven to be absolutely outstanding at despite the damage it does to the truth and to the understanding that millions of Americans have of the real world.

Of course, I expect that many of my right-leaning friends both inside and outside the news business will very quickly counter, as they seem to always do, by contending that MSNBC talkers like Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and Lawrence O'Donnell are "left-wing" propagandist pundits who also "always lie."

My answer to that is that I don't recall any of them having ever been nailed for lying about their alleged reporting "experiences." And as far as their punditry and opinions go, they are usually backed up by facts.

O'Reilly's punditry and opinions, on the other hand, are usually backed up by...well...more of his punditry and opinions and -- when pushed into a corner as he has been in regard to his lies about his "war zone" experiences covering of the Falklands War -- exceedingly vicious, baseless and often highly personal counterattacks.

-30-

********

If you enjoy reading my blog, please share it and its link with your friends and colleagues.

********

I sure would appreciate if you'd consider subscribing to or following the blog. It's easy to do and there are several options for doing so. If you look on the right side rail, you'll see the "Subscribe to" buttons and a "Subscribe by email" button. Just click any of those and follow the instructions. If you are a Google+ user you can click on the "Follow" button right under my profile picture and follow the instructions. Or, you can click on the "Google+ Add to Circles" button next to my photo and add me to your circles and get notifications of new blog entries when I post them. Thanks for giving this consideration.

As always, your thoughts and/or comments are welcomed.

FANCY GANNETT FOOTWORK: THE RENAME GAME

As anyone who has any interest whatever in following what's going on in the media already knows, Gannett is currently in the throes of an orgy of job description reinvention and renaming. And to what end?

Gone are simple to understand titles like managing editor, city editor, sports editor, reporter, photographer, copy editor, etc. They're being replaced with long winded, supposedly "digital-age" titles and job descriptions that just make most long-time newspaper veterans' heads hurt.

It seems to me that all of this renaming -- and, in some cases, forcing people to reapply for jobs -- is doing nothing to make it easier for news staffers to understand what their job are (or are supposed to be) or what they are expected to do within the framework of the brand-spanking new titles.

And if the mucks at Gannett think these new monikers are going to make it easier for readers and the general public to understand what news staffers do or who to call when they want to provide a tip, suggest a story or seek news coverage, I think they are dead wrong.

If that's the case, what, if any, purpose does all this renaming frenzy serve? Well, I think it's possible that it's being done, in part, to bedazzle and perhaps confuse investors who are disgruntled that American newspapers are no longer making the borderline obscene profits they once made. After all, a little fancy footwork might make investors think -- at least for the time being -- that you are doing something worthwhile to improve their return on investment.

If you want to see just how ridiculous it's gotten, I suggest you read this Feb. 18 blog post by renowned media blogger Jim Romenesko regarding the job title and job description changes at the Louisville, Ky., Courier-Journal, which used to be considered one of the nation's top 10 newspaper before Gannett got it hooks into it: http://jimromenesko.com/2015/02/18/louisville-courier-journals-new-job-descriptions-use-young-or-younger-45-times/?fb_comment_id=fbc_797864906955195_797950940279925_797950940279925#f3ebc28f295858.

If you read the Romenesko post, one thing that you may find truly laughable is the bit where Courier-Journal Executive Editor (I guess maybe he gets to keep that title instead something like "Grande Content Poo-Bah) Neil Budde tells readers "the result of that exercise was a revamped set of 'beats' for news and sports. It’s actually a few more beats than we’ve had in recent years."

This evokes a chortle because all of us know that Gannett, which has spent the past several years chopping news staff numbers like a berserk lumberjack, probably has no intention of adding a few more reporters -- or whatever in the heck they're now calling them -- to cover those "few more beats" this exercise in managerial masturbation will supposedly create.

As ridiculous and disturbing as it is, I am actually pretty certain that executives at Gannett are not engaging in all of this title and job description changing with malicious intent. Instead, they probably think, or at least hope, that in the final analysis all of this will contribute to making their newspapers more meaningful, appealing and relevant to readers and potential readers.

However, it seems to me that the thousands and thousands of dollars likely being pumped into this effort would be better spent adding back staffers and training them to find news stories -- REAL news stories, the more hard hitting the better -- and giving them strong play on Page 1 where readers can readily see them and they can contribute to selling newspapers.

-30-

********

If you enjoy reading my blog, please share it and its link with your friends and colleagues.

********

I sure would appreciate if you'd consider subscribing to or following the blog. It's easy to do and there are several options for doing so. If you look on the right side rail, you'll see the "Subscribe to" buttons and a "Subscribe by email" button. Just click any of those and follow the instructions. If you are a Google+ user you can click on the "Follow" button right under my profile picture and follow the instructions. Or, you can click on the "Google+ Add to Circles" button next to my photo and add me to your circles and get notifications of new blog entries when I post them. Thanks for giving this consideration.

As always, your thoughts and/or comments are welcomed.

A VETERAN EDITOR AND FORMER BOSS SPEAKS UP ON PAY-FOR-PLAY REPORTING

My old friend and former boss, Henry J. Holcomb, who retired a few years ago from his last newspaper position  at The Philadelphia Inquirer, posted a comment on my last blog entry "NEWSPAPER ETHICS: MAINTAINING (OR NOT) THE LINE BETWEEN DOLLARS AND SENSE" (Feb. 12) that I think deserves more prominent play than just as simple tagged on response to the entry.

I've always held Henry -- who, as managing editor of The Fort Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram, hired me away from The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss., to be his business editor -- in high regard as one of the best, though not always easiest to please, editors I ever worked for.

Henry is one of the most philosophically thoughtful editors I've known, and that aspect of him frequently showed up in our editor meetings when he would toss out for discussion an often controversial idea or concept that would land like a hand grenade chunked onto the middle of the conference table where we all gathered.

One of the things I admired most about Henry was his finely honed sense of journalistic principles and ethics and the fact the he truly believed in the adage that holds "the purpose of a newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," which seemed to serve as one of his philosophical guideposts in managing the news department at The Star-Telegram.

Henry departed Fort Worth in, I think, 1983 to go to an editing position at The Inquirer, which under legendary editor Gene Roberts was, at the time, perhaps the nation's leading newspaper when it came to afflicting the comfortable, but his influence remained with me throughout the rest of my newspaper career -- another 30 years.

Weighing in on pay-for-play journalism, here is what Henry had to say:

"Steve: You raised issues here that need raising (and stirred unpleasant memories of the Camel scoreboard affair).

Sponsored content is spreading in digital media. Ads pop up in stories — even in digital products of good papers — according to data modern technology is harvesting for advertiser about the individual reader’s needs and interests. This is leading to stronger efforts to manipulate content — and even greater reader cynicism about journalists' ability to tell it like it is.

Crowdfunding is unlikely to produce clear thinking and vigilance that serves the whole community. I've written and edited so many stories that irritated a large number of people for a time until the full impact of what was being reported sunk in.

Reporting funded by foundations poses risks, too. Foundations tend to be controlled by the wealthy whose good fortune gives them a different feel and sense of a community. Some may not to meddle in the stories they fund. But they clearly influence which projects were pursued.

This, of course, is hazardous to the health of a free society. So write on.

You remember the past more fondly than I do, though.

These issues have always been a struggle. There have been a few newspaper owners like James B. Quigley of The Orange (Texas) Leader, where I worked long ago, who understood the importance of credibility and what built it. For example, he stood strong when a local car dealer threatened to pull his ads if we reported on his son's rather public misbehavior.  Mr. Quigley told the dealer that he hoped he wouldn’t do that — because that would mean he couldn’t afford a new car.

'If we don’t run the story,' Mr. Quigley said, 'the people in this city won’t respect either of us.' (Eventually declining car sales forced the dealer to advertise again,  and Mr. Quigley could afford to buy his badly needed a new car.)

Few fresh-out-of-business-school publishers of papers owned by the big chains have been able to be as principled as Mr. Quigley was on this story -- and on broader issues related to the news and commentary needs of the community. Missing the corporate revenue goals has long been very hazardous to career health."

Thanks for the comment, Henry, I couldn't agree with you more.

-30-

********

If you enjoy reading my blog, please share it and its link with your friends and colleagues.

********

I sure would appreciate if you'd consider subscribing to or following the blog. It's easy to do and there are several options for doing so. If you look on the right side rail, you'll see the "Subscribe to" buttons and a "Subscribe by email" button. Just click any of those and follow the instructions. If you are a Google+ user you can click on the "Follow" button right under my profile picture and follow the instructions. Or, you can click on the "Google+ Add to Circles" button next to my photo and add me to your circles and get notifications of new blog entries when I post them. Thanks for giving this consideration.

As always, your thoughts and/or comments are welcomed.

NEWSPAPER ETHICS: MAINTAINING (OR NOT) THE LINE BETWEEN DOLLARS AND SENSE

In the late 1970's newspaper editorial and advertising departments across the nation faced off in an epic nose-to-nose battle over a "revenue-generating" idea proposed by the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., makers of Camel cigarettes (my brand -- the unfiltered ones -- at the time).

The cigarette maker approached newspaper ad executives with an idea they said would generate revenue from the sports statistics that virtually all daily newspapers in the country were already running as news copy that was generally not specifically supported by ad dollars. It almost goes without saying that advertising department's were pretty much unanimously in favor of the idea.

The proposal called for participating papers to run what essentially would be an ad frame -- duplicating the frame on the front of a Camels package -- around a full page of sports stats. At the top of the frame would be a large page header reading "Camel Scoreboard" and at the bottom there would be an about two-inch-deep by six-column-wide shelf ad promoting Camel cigarettes. In exchange for running this ad frame daily around information already being gathered and published, R.J. Reynolds offered to pay each participating newspaper's going rate for a full page ad.

I've no doubt that such an offer today would be snapped up in the blink of an eye by every cash-strapped newspaper in the United States . That's NOW, but not THEN, when ad revenues were still soaring and newspapers where achieving profit percentages that made them the envy of even oil and utility companies.

In those days, the line between dollars and journalism ethics was very clearly defined.

At the time, I was managing editor of The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss., and based upon advice from other members of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and members of the national and state Associated Press Managing Editors organizations -- as well as the icky feeling the proposal gave me and Sports Editor Tom Patterson even without input from colleagues -- I declined to go along with the proposal based on journalistic ethical considerations. My decision to just say no -- perhaps a little surprisingly even then -- won the support of the newspaper's publisher, Robert Hederman Sr.

I was not alone in my opposition to what now must seem like a very generous offer from R.J. Reynolds. Virtually every reputable daily newspaper in the country also rejected the proposal based on ethical considerations. Mainly, it was felt that framing the page as requested would make it appear as though news people were gathering and publishing the statics for (ergo, working for) the makers of Camels as opposed to providing it as an informational public service of the newspaper. Some also opposed it based on what might today be best described as the Joe Camel objection. Much of the statistical information run by papers was for local high school sports and was well read by teens. At the time, the office of the U.S. Surgeon General was just beginning it's push against tobacco usage -- which eventually resulted in warnings on tobacco product packages and newspapers ceasing to run tobacco ads -- and many editors and publishers wanted to avoid anything that might seem like enticements for teens to use to tobacco products. The Camel Scoreboard sputtered along briefly and then went up in smoke.

Times have changed in the intervening years since the collapse of the Camel Scoreboard concept when U.S. newspapers were still fiscally fat and sassy and virtually no reputable daily, regardless of size, ran ads on news section fronts, much less on their front pages.

Now, the newspaper industry -- in the continuing throes of financial a crisis -- is debating two new and similar revenue-generation concepts that threaten to further blur, if not totally obliterate, the line that has traditionally separated dollars and news content.

The two concepts are "content underwriting" and "crowdfunding." Although they are somewhat different, both concepts involve pay-for-play strategies that I find ethically repugnant and the worst threats yet to the once treasured American newspaper value of news objectivity, since both seem to me to be first cousins to what we in the newspaper industry have known for years as advatorial writing.

I find both concepts at least as onerous -- and as detrimental to a newspaper's credibility and perceived ethics -- as the Camel Scoreboard idea. They are, in essence, journalistic prostitution.

Under the content underwriting concept, certain groups would provide a newspaper with money to "enhance" specific areas of coverage. For instance, a local arts group might -- as they did with the Greensboro, N.C., News & Record last June -- provide funding so the newspaper will provide more coverage of arts in the community.

In conjunction with crowdfunding -- which seeks a broader base of "community" support requiring more people to each give fewer dollars -- a newspaper's general readership would be surveyed to find out what issues, topics or areas of coverage are of most interest to most people. Funds would then be solicited to help defray the expense of providing enhanced reporting on those issues, topics or areas of coverage.

Let's be totally honest here. Does anyone really think that any reputable newspaper would consider either content underwriting or crowd funding if they still had reporting staffs large enough to adequately cover everything important in and to the communities they serve? I don't think so.

What's more, I think that to satisfy the coverage underwriters in either concept, a newspaper will have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Realistically, I don't foresee any newspaper that decides to "take advantage" of either concept hiring additional staff to provide the promised "enhanced" coverage. Instead, to achieve the desired -- and paid for -- result, they would have to begin skimping on other areas of coverage -- areas that, while not as ethereal as the arts, might have a greater impact on a larger number of people. As I see it, the result would be even greater general community dissatisfaction with coverage by a larger readership audience. Editors would be having to ask themselves on an almost daily basis what they are willing to skip because their arts organization content underwriters expect (and the dollars demand) that they cover, say, a performance by the community orchestra instead of something that possibly could have a greater impact on the community at large.

There is also the question of where the line gets drawn as far as who gets to underwrite what sorts of coverage and content and how much control do they get to exercise over what gets written and published. For instance, what if the local automobile dealers association is allowed to underwrite enhanced coverage of all things automotive? I can guarantee that the enhanced coverage they have in mind does not included a newspaper series on widespread repair ripoffs by local dealer service departments like the one we published when I was managing editor of The Clarion-Ledger. (Please see my July 22, 2014, post MODERN MEDIA PERIL: NEWSPAPER INTESTINAL FORTITUDE VS. ADVERTISER BULLYING.) So, in order to maintain the flow of added cash for enhanced automotive coverage, does the newspaper simply forego such a series that could be very valuable to the general readership and if so what does that say about the paper's journalism ethics and credibility?

Frankly, as disturbed as I am about the content underwriting concept, I am even more put off by the idea of crowdfunding.

Not only do I think it's fraught with all the same potential problems as content underwriting, but I am also seriously rankled by the idea that large groups of readers should be asked to pay additional for the type of coverage they have every right to expect they'll get in a newspaper they already pay for daily. It's my feeling that the executives at any newspaper that wants readers to do that should just go ahead and have the balls -- and honesty -- to institute the sort of price increase that will allow them to hire enough new staff to provide the sort of coverage readers expect and deserve. Enough said.

-30-

For further reading on the two concepts, I suggest this piece by former News & Record Editor John Robinson http://johnlrobinson.com/2014/07/paying-for-journalism-community-based-crowdfunding/.

This by Corey Hutchinson, Columbia Journalism Review's Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina correspondent, http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/revenue_experiment_throwdown_crowdfunding_vs_underwriting.php?page=all. 

This by media blogger Steve Buttry https://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2014/07/22/could-crowdfunding-help-restore-some-newspaper-beats/.

********

If you enjoy reading this blog, please share it and its link with your friends and colleagues.

********

Blog Readers: If you enjoy reading my posts on The Ancient Newspaper Editor, I sure would appreciate if you'd consider subscribing to or following the blog. It's easy to do and there are several options for doing so. If you look on the right side rail, you'll see the "Subscribe to" buttons and a "Subscribe by email" button. Just click any of those and follow the instructions. If you are a Google+ user you can click on the "Follow" button right under my profile picture and follow the instructions. Or, you can click on the "Google+ Add to Circles" button next to my photo and add me to your circles and get notifications of new blog entries when I post them. Thanks for giving this consideration.

As always, your thoughts and/or comments are welcomed.