Entries associated with the tag "Washington Post":

I hope I sounded properly enthusiastic last October writing about Pro Publica, a newsroom of investigative reporters sponsored by a California philanthropy. But I had qualms. "Pro Publica believes it will be the 'largest, best-led and best-funded investigative journalism operation in the United States,'" I wrote. "Even so, a bureau of 24 reporters and editors can't begin to meet the national need. Furthermore, a team of journalists all based in Manhattan . . . won't have its ear to the streets of Topeka." Pro Publica had announced that it intended to work on stories of national scope, "truly important stories . . . with moral force." This grandiosity suggested that Pro Publica wouldn't be looking where the need was greatest, to the middle markets whose papers were pulling in their investigative horns, thereby giving a pass, I said, to "corruption in the local city hall and assessor's office."

Now Pro Publica's up to a staff of 28 (two Pulitzer winners from the LA Times have just agreed to sign on), and on Monday, Edward Wasserman of the Miami Herald judged it on its first big story. He was properly enthusiastic -- he called Pro Publica a "dazzling new investigative reporting outfit" that had just collaborated with 60 Minutes on a "scathing examination" of al-Hurra" -- the badly managed and little-watched news network the Bush administration set up in Virginia at a cost of $100 million a year to broadcast in Arabic to the Middle East. But Wasserman had qualms. "Why was Pro Publica using its philanthropic funding to, essentially, subsidize the cost of a segment for 60 Minutes, the most financially successful news show in the history of U.S. television? And how could Pro Publica claim to be filling a void when the Washington Post broke its own story on al-Hurra the same day (June 22)? 

Finally, Wasserman suggested the way Pro Publica was spending its $10 million a year from the Sadler Foundation is beside the point. "What's vanishing," he wrote, "is that vast mid-range of solid, investigative sleuthing that used to be integral to the work of the country's better local and regional newspapers -- the stories of judicial corruption, cronyism, crooked zoning, crummy schools, contracting scams. . ."

"Increasingly, nobody's doing those stories," Wasserman went on, "and the next wave of nonprofit funding should go to creating positions in regional newsrooms for reporters who will."

When I called general manager Richard Tofel Monday morning for his reaction to Wasserman's piece, it turned out that he'd already talked to him and responded with a letter to Jim Romenesko's Media News Web site. "Our aim is to provide stories of force and value to readers," Tofel wrote. "For that reason, and to the extent we have a choice of publishing partners for our major stories, we select them with an eye toward maximizing the stories' impact. With this in mind, we were delighted to work with 60 Minutes."

To me Tofel said, "The fact that one of these great and still economically powerful news organizations could do any investigative story, which they could, does not seem to me to prove that they would or will do all possible investigative stories worth doing."  In other words, 60 Minutes might have the wherewithal to do a report on al-Hurra, but  the report happened because Pro Publica advocated for it and did the reporting. If Pro Publica believes in the stories it's breaking, it has no reason to apologize for finding partners who will bring them to the widest possible audiences.

As for the Washington Post, "For us, the fact the Washington Post was on the same story the same week is really a good thing. One reason is that we're not looking to sell advertising or circulation. We're looking to make a difference about al-Hurra. If by the end of the day we're the only ones covering it we're in trouble. If you're going to have impact, other people are going to notice."

In his critique Wasserman said he fears that "structural problems in Pro Publica's organizational model [might] keep it from sparking the transformation U.S. journalism needs." That's a lot to ask of anybody and more than Pro Publica ever promised, but when it was new it did claim to be responding to a moment in history "when new models are necessary to carry forward some of the great work of journalism in the public interest that is such an integral part of self-government, and thus an important bulwark of our democracy." No wonder Wasserman didn't cut Pro Publica any slack. In his letter to Romenesko, Tofel asked for reasonable expectations. "Shoring up the economics of . . . metro papers, or any other news business, is beyond our ability," he said.

Bad days at gawker.com, the prominent New York-based media-focused blogging site. Reporter Hamilton Nolan files on an unfortunate speech that Village Voice Media press lord Mike Lacey delivered a few days ago at an awards dinner in Phoenix: diners "were less than amused when (the white man) Lacey referred to his deceased friend, Pulitzer Prize-winning black journalist Tom Fitzpatrick, as 'my nigger.'" No doubt they were, but Fitz's many old friends in Chicago, where he won a Pulitzer in 1970 with the Sun-Times, will be surprised to hear that when he changed cities he changed races.

Mistakes happen. Inanity is never an accident. In his commentary on the Pulitzer Prizes that were announced Monday, gawker.com managing editor Nick Denton made the observation that "Pulitzer-chasing is most damaging because it distracts newspapers from their real challenge. Rather than impress colleagues with the seriousness of their reporting, US newspapers need to engage a readership that is drifting off to television and the internet." 

As if it's either/or.

There's a lot that might be said about the Pulitzers this year. Prizes were awarded in 11 writing categories in journalism and the Washington Post won six of them. The New York Times won a couple more, and was a finalist in three more categories. Maybe the Post, for all of its own cost-cutting woes, had a hell of a year. But if you want to argue that the Pulitzers are turning into a cozy old-boys club, or that so many papers have trimmed so much of their product that only a handful are even competitive any longer, the 2008 Pulitzers will help you make your case.

Denton tried to make his by invoking The Wire, which "made one of the last season's villains an editor who boasted of his understanding of Pulitzer judges, because he had once been one." Open and shut, I guess, and Denton noted that British papers are better than ours and don't take their awards so seriously. Cause and effect, I guess.

The Tribune won a Pulitzer for investigative reporting into the slipshod regulation of toys and other children's products. James Janega's story on the award observed that the experience of business writer Michael Oneal, one member of the reporting team, illustrated the "juxtaposition of journalism and the nervousness that surrounds the industry." Oneal covered the sale of the Tribune Company to Sam Zell, and Janega said he "described having to write stories one day bemoaning the future of journalism and newspapers and turning the next day to a series that he felt underscored the best newspapers had to offer."

It must have been uncomfortable for Oneal having two big ideas in his head at the same time, but with all due respect to Denton, I doubt if it was impossible.

I'd expect the Washington Post's ombudsman to write about the First Amendment with more precision than Deborah Howell did the other day. She was discussing a full-page ad in the Post that announced--screamed is more like it--the offer by Hustler publisher Larry Flynt of up to $1 million for "documented evidence of illicit sexual or intimate relations with a Congressperson, Senator or other prominent officeholder." A hotline was prominently displayed. In her June 10 column, Howell offered Flynt's explanation for the ad: "If someone takes a public position that is contrary to the way they live their private lives, they are fair game and the public should know about it. The hypocrisy in politics is overwhelming."

Fer sure. But hypocrisy in journalism should be as rare as snow in December. (These days.) Howell wrote, "My reaction to the ad: Yuck! It made me cringe. But The Post has a First Amendment right to publish the ad, and what Flynt is doing is not illegal."

Howell said readers had written in wondering "Are there no standards?" and "Does The Post need the income that badly?"  

In other words, readers were accusing the Post of bad taste, not criminal behavior. They were questioning the Post's judgment, and the First Amendment has nothing to do with that. The Post was free to publish the ad and it was just as free not to. It was under no obligation--to either the Constitution or the canons of journalism--to do either.