Changes at the Christian Science Monitor

This coming April, the Christian Science Monitor will take the unprecendented step of becoming the first daily newspaper with a national audience to drop its daily print publication and go to an online format that is updated continuously.

While some may see this as the next step in the death of newspapers, I prefer to see it as part of the ongoing evolution of journalism.

It's true, the traditional newspaper is going the way of the dinosaur. But that's a good thing, and won't spell the end for journalism in the United States.

What's been happening technologically for the past 20 years has created an incredible opportunity for us to interact with our audience in ways never imaged in the previous century. Newspapers, radio, TV and cable all have had one common short coming - they're primarily a one-way communication tool with no ability to personalize services for the individual audience member. Everyone receives the product in the same one-size fits all package.

Now the media can engage its consumers on an individual basis, generate instantaneous feedback and provide information in multiple formats to better tell the story. This journalistic evolution is not going to be easy. There are going to be some traditional news outlets that won't be able to adapt and die off. But the fight for survival will push others into a new realm of innovation that will fundamentally change the way news outlets provide information and work with their audiences.

For more on the changes at the Christian Science Monitor, check out: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1029/p25s01-usgn.html

A handful of complaints about election coverage...

As we near the end of a 21-month presidential campaign, there's one consensus that seems clear nationally – we're all ready for it to end. And in a few days, barring a repeat of the 2000 election counting issues, we'll know who the nation has selected to lead us into the next four years.

But before we move on, I thought I'd comment a little on some campaign news coverage habits that I'm ready to see end:

1) Enough of the daily poll updates already. Do we really need a poll of polls from every state every day for the final 2-1/2 months of the election. It seems like the day is coming when we'll all be wired into a big data collection unit and show our candidate preferences in real time all the time. Imagine the target demographic breakdowns they could give.

It doesn't help that they continually tell us that these polls are often wrong. That the accuracy of the poll depends upon: a) which turnout model ends up being correct; b) how the undecided voters swing; and c) whether or not people are telling the truth to the pollsters.

So ... the polls swing all the time, tighten as the election nears and are often wrong because they depend upon variables that no one can predict. But we spend hour after hour talking about them. This makes little sense to me.

2) Stop repeating candidate lies. When you prove that a statement they make is wrong, stop putting them on the airwaves repeating the falsehoods. Your first obligation is to be accurate. Some candidates seem to think that if they simply repeat a lie often enough it will be accepted as truth. 

3) Be a little more picky about the so-called experts you put on the air. A loud-mouth name-caller might make for good banter, but really, how does this serve anyone. Last night, Chris Matthews had Tom Delay on and let him spew his venom ad nauseum for five minutes. Then he put on a more diplomatic Florida Congresswoman to counter his views. Delay is a notable figure from the Republican party, but he left office in disgrace not to long ago and presumably has not been in contact with either campaign. He's no longer relevant. But at least he's a known name, which is more than I can say about many of the political commentators we see.

4) We're paying way too much to name-calling. Like the lies, continuously broadcasting the name calling does little to further the ability of voters to make an informed decision. We've seen the labels Socialist, Communist, Marxists, anti-American, and others thrown around. It's pure silliness. I guess the tried and true label of liberal no longer works. Of course, the Democrats should be blamed for this as well. They just do their name calling in a more subtle fashion and seem to think the name "George Bush" is more destructive than right wing or war monger.

So, what are your pet peeves about election coverage? Share them now, before you forget.

Reporting on flood disaster

Natural disasters, untimely death, accidents and other tragedies fill media headlines every day. And in each of these stories, journalists attempt to balance two competing forces – their responsibility to report these events fully and accurately and their moral obligation to treat those affected with compassion.

As I write this, my home is surrounded by floodwater. It has been for the last four days.

I've seen pictures on television of rescue boats going down my street to evacuate others who didn't leave as early as I did. I've seen photos on web sites of the bridge down the road with water raging over the top. I've watched video of a home in a neighboring county being washed away and destroyed.

Now I'm to to the point where I can't watch TV news or read about it any more.

All this news coverage has added to my anxiety. How much? There's no way to now. But it has also provided me with some positives. 

From The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel web site, I was able to print out tips on cleaning up my home after a flood.

The newspaper also did a report on the status of some of the state's dams and bridges, which helped me understand why officials have been so concerned about even greater problems.

I've helped people fill sandbags at the Columbus Volunteer Fire Department, joining hundreds of volunteers who might not have helped if they hadn't seen something about it in the news.

And I learned from The Beaver Dam Daily Citizen web site how to request money from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help with cleanup.

So, even though it has added to my stress, I know I have benefited from the extensive media coverage. As much as I don't like seeing the devastating images, they have value.

But that value is lost and becomes simple exploitation if the media fail to go one step farther and give people useful information they can act on.

Please remember this as you work on The Clarion staff and throughout your career in journalism. Your role is to help people by providing them information they can use to make decisions in their daily lives. In this case, tell those who are impacted where they can go for help, offer them clean up tips, share the latest information from FEMA and the Red Cross, and let others know how they can help out.

Oftentimes, the only way people who are evacuated from their homes can learn about this vital information is through the media. Keeping them informed and quelling rumors is one way you, as a journalist, can comfort the afflicted.