WWN Days 3 and 4 -- Dodging A Bullet

It's 7/7/7 folks. On a day that I thought only the Sweet brothers and their Stryper bandmates could get excited about, I'm getting the impression they aren't alone in getting all atwitter over today. But I won't harp on that, because I've been guilty on more than one occasion of watching the clock tick to 1:23 p.m. (I still maintain that's not as goofy as staying up until 1:09 a.m. ... the 69th minute of the day, Beavis!).

Okay, so I promised examples of decent journalism, and today's entry comes from an online news source. I bookmarked this in May in anticipation of this year's WWN, recognizing that this story fit the model of the type of stuff they taught us in school (you know -- the stuff few follow anymore).

A shining example of "Man Bites Dog," this story is almost too crazy to believe. No, it's not one of those "News of the Weird" headlines that make for interesting Darwin Awards fodder, but are a little too sensational to be considered news. This is the type of stuff that makes even the most ardent skeptics wonder if there's more to life than the science that creates and destroys it. Check it out:

http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=70980

And for the record, I expect this dude to eventually be Colorado's first Powerball winner ... he certainly deserves it.

I could get into the minutia of how and why this story represents proper journalism, but I'll stick with a few general points instead. The headline properly summarizes the main point of the story (I can't tell you how often I read a headline that speaks to details that aren't addresses until the seventh paragraph of the story ... not good). The lead paragraph is almost perfect (the "thanks to..." bit is a little editorial), serving the simple purpose it has been assigned. Better yet, the follow-up paragraph builds on this AND tells the reader exactly why this story is so unique. Then it goes directly into a quote, which does its job of supporting the preceding paragraph. All told, the story sticks to the prototypical model that all journalists are taught.

We could discuss other mechanical elements of the story that are in line with standards, but I've already made this dry enough. The real point I want to make about this is the news can and does report on murders, violent crimes, etc., all day long, but this story here is the one example of why such a crime is news. The majority of other stories are just crap and, in my opinion, the result of lazy journalism and an underachieving news desk.

I'm not saying a community should turn a blind eye to what happens in their cities, but you reach a certain population size where reporting on drive-bys, gang violence, murder, etc., no longer makes much sense, at least not in an ad hoc fashion. In fact, perpetually focusing on these types of stories brings about (wait for it, wait for it) -- desensitization. There, I said it. But I'm not going to get into it, because at the end of the day, you either believe densensitization is real or not. I would even argue that the net effect isn't as passive as densensitization. Quite frankly, I think an incessant flow of news into the brain warps our perspectives and shapes our opinions in unnatural ways. But ahhhhh, I've strayed ... mea culpa and all that.

So instead of choosing to randomly cover various acts of violence in isolation, I again say the news needs to dig deeper. Look at this stuff in aggregate -- "What are we doing as a community to curb violence?" "What progress has the police made with breaking down drug rings, gang factions?" "Which individuals are making a real difference with unique, unselfish contributions that help bring positive change to their communities?" (the latter always gets buried at the end of a newscast, and is delivered in too fluffy of a manner).

Perhaps I'm just a snob for substantive news analysis or I just can't accept that the media became bored with doing things the old way. Obviously, we can't do away with the down and dirty hard news, but I will always maintain that how that news is selected, packaged and delivered makes all the difference.

To their credit, 9News has a winner with this story ... let's see more of it.

"WWN" -- Drugs are bad, m'kay!

What can the media do to report more effectively on drugs in America? Or have we already looked at this topic from every single angle to the point that we've worn it raw?

Bringing a personal note to this topic, I have a 27-year-old nephew who continues to go in and out of prison thanks to an insatiable heroin addiction (Insatiable addiction? Is there any other kind?). I have two sisters who are in their late 40s and are finally getting their lives back on track after decades of various addictions (coke, crack, prescription meds, meth). One is four years' sober, and the other just hit the one-year sobriety mark ... for that, I'm quite proud and hopeful for their futures. And finally, dad was an alcoholic who died at the age of 55, partially due to the alcohol abuse.

We all know the Nuclear Family concept is largely a myth these days, so my experiences are not uncommon unfortunately. As such, I feel somewhat justified in calling out drugs as a universal topic warranting more attention. However, to date, the media tends to focus only on effects, and rarely causes.

Case in point -- each day you can see headlines as they pertain to gang violence, murders, drug busts, etc. Rarely do we get right down to the drug culture in America, and by that I mean the 'entire' culture, from the illicit to the prescribed. We're not dedicating any ink to understanding this problem from a macro level, again because it's easier to only report on a tactical, case-by-case basis.

I don't really blame the media for not going gangbusters on this, because I think we can agree that once you start to peel back a few layers, you'll find one massive elephant that's too large to be ignored. More specifically, any honest and comprehensive look at America's drug culture would have to include:

- How the big drug companies go about business
- How our federal government supports their interests ahead of its citizens
- How we've created an environment whereby mommy and daddy's pot phase just morphs into their painkiller phase
- The types of ethical sacrifices and shady deals law enforcement agencies have to make for the greater good of citizens

I know I'm bordering on propaganda with these comments, but these are collectively just the tip of the iceberg. There are too many variables to list in one blog, but suffice to say that we don't treat this topic with enough priority. It's the "skeleton in the closet" type stuff that no self-respecting Stepford would ever want to air out in public. Much like one would never say the names of fatal diseases out loud in the first half of the 20th century, no one wants to own this weight publicly or in a community fashion. The result is we internalize the topic, bury it and, worse yet, tend to view and analyze it in a myopic way (e.g., "No one understands this pain.").

Case in point #2 -- I quit discussing my nephew's addiction with him a long time ago, and I barely talk with my sisters about their own experiences. Are there questions I want to ask and things I'd like to say and should say? To the extent that they would open a meaningful and helpful dialog, most definitely.

I get the sense that the media has done extensive and extended coverage of these topics, but because they lack that enduring "right now" news factor, coverage remains a bit too transient. I'm also willing to bet that no one has done a complete job of covering the drug culture from soup to nuts. My speculation is risky, I know, which is why I once again call upon any readers to enlighten me to anything they've read in the press. Point being, there are more critical topics to pursue, and better ways of looking at news that's been done to death.

Coincidentally, the two topics I've presented thus far (steroids in baseball, drugs in America) are obviously linked, and they speak to an even bigger issue. Can you guess what it is? Yup, America has a self-image problem. Anyone want to tackle that one?

"WWN" Days One and Two

Not that I've become an apologist for the national media, but I've obviously spent some time trying to figure out why things have degraded over time (I do more than simply bitch about things, ya know). No surprise that everything comes back to economics:

- Newspapers and their staffs have shrunk along with advertising revenue
- Magazines are little more than a loose network of free-lance writers
- Cable news networks have to invent and editorialize to fill 24 hours
- Online sites have to cater to the lowest common denominator to secure high traffic

When TIME magazine lays off senior staff and brings interns in to handle their duties, then you know the (pardon the pun) times are a changin'. Although, I suppose some could argue that magazines, cable news networks and online sites have always wrestled these issues (but clearly it's worse today than it has ever been).

Newspapers are the real victim here, and believe it or not, I find myself bummed about that. For one, they represent tradition. As you know, before the digital age, papers were THE source. And even today, they appear to be the last bastion for substantive reporting. In my last post, I said there were some stories I'd like to highlight, and not coincidentally, most of these were from newspapers.

We'll get to those in the coming days, since I found it refreshing that a few journalists and editors still care to do this thing the right way. And despite the fact that wire stories increase their ink domination in most metropolitan newspapers each day, your local scoop reporter isn't dead yet.

For today, in the interest of touching on the "topics we should be focusing on", I'd like to hit on this notion of substantive reporting. Back in the day, journalists were taught to write for the 30-minute reader, 3-minute reader and 30-second reader. With the digital age, we've moved it down to the 3-second reader, so obviously we've lowered the bar even further.

The result is you have a dearth of articles that transcend the 'sexy' and 'bizarre.' Again, it's a lowest-common-denominator world, and we're just living in it. So, what we get are a slew of basic, wire-fodder pieces about whatever trend or topic is occupying us at the time, but few, if any, stories that dig deeper. Instead of hardcore news analysis, we get re-directed to the editorial pages or whatever beat columinist has a 'take' on the matter. All of that is fine, but there was a time when news did more than just placate our strange desire for the headline and lead paragraph. It made us think, it did the research for us and it gave us plenty more to question and process.

I mentioned Barry Bonds before, and this is one of those timely topics that speaks to things I think we ought to be focusing on. Purely my opinion, and I completely realize that a number of people could care less about sports (not to mention the fact that the over-saturation of Barry would prevent a number of people from considering yet another Barry story). But it's not the notion of Barry or steroids or baseball that has prompted me to raise this; there's nothing intrinsic about these elements that warrant merit or attention. It's the fact that this is such a great example of the media completely missing the point, or better yet, the meat of the story.

Let's get right down to it -- Barry Bonds is a pariah. Not a victim, but a pariah, and Major League Baseball is more than happy to accept that. What's more, the media is just as satisfied to let Bonds be the focus of their news. Now, I'd never excuse Barry's personal responsibility in all this, but I have to tell you that if I were in his shoes, I wouldn't own up to it either. Not because I don't have integrity or because I don't care about the fans, but because MLB has put Barry in a no-win situation. If he comes clean, he has to own the entire weight of baseball's steroid era, while MLB gets a free pass. Unfortunately, that part has already been written in the history books, regardless of what Barry does from here on out.

But the fact remains that MLB created this environment, allowed it to exist (some would say, supported it), and was all-too happy to sell out America's National Pastime for the sake ratings and attendance. Today, they are mum on the matter, and I find it absolutely shocking that more journalists aren't taking the league to task over this whole thing. The focus has been and continues to be on individual players, and to me that's the sucker's way out. It's easy for writers to focus on icons of the game and all the tactical matters that surround each. It's a much bigger mountain to climb when you start talking about the system and all of the things that go on behind closed doors.

And let's face it ... the media knows it will have an easier time selling stories about what Barry injects in his ass than pieces that attempt to deconstruct the minds and secrets of Bud Selig and Donald Fehr. Barry's drama will always outweigh that of the establishment, particularly in light of the variables at play here -- namely the fact that Barry is poised to break the most sacred record in baseball.

Interestingly, that record is precisely why steroids and Barry are issues in baseball and NOT in any of the other major sports. If an unlikable guy in the NFL were about to break storied records, you can bet that questions would be raised, deserved or not.

Bottom line here -- if we have to accept that the media is going to go ga-ga over various topics, then is it too much to ask for a little substance? And from a business point of view, wouldn't it behoove a news outlet or two to step up to the plate and deliver this type of reporting on a consistent and priority basis, considering how competitive the industry is? For the record, the crap you see on Dateline, 20-20, etc., doesn't count. The pieces are too editorial (just listen to the reporter's inflections when narrating the 'news'); they're riddled with the same scare-tactic crap you find on the local news; and the facts are hand-picked to support the position, instead of the position reflecting the total facts.

If you come across good examples, I'd love to see them. In the interest of being 'fair and balanced', I'd like to highlight these stories as often as possible.

2nd Annual "Week Without News"

Nancy Grace Needs a Time-Out
It's that time again kiddies ... as Independence Day approaches, so doth my freedom to withdraw from all things mass media-related for seven days straight. That's right, it's time for "A Week Without News." For those who are unfamiliar with why I decided to do this, you can get the skinny here.

What: 2nd Annual "A Week Without News"
When: July 4 through July 10
Why: "Because you're Kelly, Kelly, Kelly" ... er, I mean to demonstrate that the world does not revolve around shocking news delivered by some well-coiffed talking head.
How: Should you choose to accept this mission, simply avoid all forms of media for the next seven days (it's more difficult than you think). Consider it your own little protest against the incessant march of Paris Hilton Pimpin'/Barry Bonds Bashin'/Metro Murder Mayhem infotainment.

Last year, my daily blog posts focused on the experience of avoiding all forms of media, from morning radio and newspapers to online news sites and TV broadcasts. I also did some of my usual anti-media barking, all of which I still stand behind, but this year I want to take a somewhat different approach. Each day, I'm going to highlight an example of news reporting done right or a story or topic we should be focusing on, rather than merely consuming what we're fed.

Now, obviously I'm using editorial license to handpick these stories, so when I say what "we 'should' be focusing on," it's just my opinion. And actually, when you think about it, in that sense the only thing that separates me from a news editor is the title. At the end of the day, these folks have to make an editorial call on what makes the news and what doesn't. Of course, that's all remedial, motherhood crap we're all familiar with, but I thought it was ironic just the same.

One thing to note this time around -- I'm kicking this off a couple of weeks earlier this year. Last time I mentioned the existence of a national day of media boycott on July 4. So, in honor of that event, I'm starting this and all subsequent 'weeks without news' on Independence Day.

Also, as I've mentioned previously, I do this thing for myself. I obviously don't expect everyone to place the same priority as I do on such a subject. However, I welcome everyone's feedback, comments, and above all else, participation. If you feel as I do, then I look forward to you joining me each year. Or, if you prefer, simply show your displeasure in whatever manner you deem appropriate (so long as it doesn't include Joan Rivers, pickled herring and a sock).

And on a final note, during the last year, I was surprised to come across a few instances of journalists doing their jobs correctly. I hope to share some of those stories with you this time around, and of course I'd love to hear your own thoughts on things you think should be covered more, so add comments at will.