Pundit Alert -- Deggans Hits CNN Sunday

There are times when writing this blog feels like a cry in the wilderness. But not today.

That's because producers at CNN's Reliable Sources program tell me my posting on Dateline NBC's "To Catch a Predator" series prompted them to offer a spot on the show at 10:30 a.m. Sunday (set your TiVos! Or make sure you're at church, depending on how you feel about seeing my ugly mug on the small screen).

I think I'll be speaking with host Howie Kurtz, media critic at the Washington Post, Glenn Reynolds of the blog Instapundit and Steve Roberts, a journalism professor at George Washington University who worked many years for the New York Times, pops up everywhere from NPR to USA Weekend, and writes a nationally syndicated column with his wife, former ABC anchor Cokie Roberts. (those who read an early version of this posting, saw that I both misspelled Steve's last name and made him a substitute host of the show. What can I say -- I was trying to finish up for the weekend...)

Though I have done MSNBC and PBS, this will be my first CNN gig, so wish me luck. And any ideas about points worth making on the Dateline issue or media in general would be most appreciated.

Rosie O'Donnell Gets a Different View?

If you can believe the tabloid TV show Extra -- and, my gosh, who doesn't? -- self-destructive ex-talk show host Rosie O'Donnell will be announced tomorrow as a replacement for Meredith Viera on the daytime talk show The View.

And while O'Donnell's past success in daytime TV makes the hiring somewhat logical -- she reportedly beat out a field which included Connie Chung and Patricia Heaton from Everybody Loves Raymond (?!) -- you've got to wonder whether anyone at The View has any long-term memory left. Because it hasn't been three weeks since O'Donnell delivered a particulaly pointed diss to one of the show's biggest divas, Star Jones.

Continuing her habit of inflicting her opinion on people who don't ask for it, O'Donnell was quoted by StarPulse.com (I know, only the coolest news sources appear on this blog!) complaining over Jones' willingness to discuss her breast augmentation surgery while she resists divulging whether gastric bypass surgery helped with her near-horrific recent weight loss.

"I don't understand with Star Jones why she's alright talking about a breast augmentation but not gastric bypass," O'Donnell said, in a quote originally recorded by Access Hollywood. "If you have to have a gastric bypass because you feel it's a medical emergency and you have no alternative, then you have that, and there are repercussions to having that. But to pretend that you lost it doing Pilates, it's kind of delusional."

If you thought The View was bitchy with just two divas -- Jones and Barbra Walters, of course -- wait until O'Donnell brings the same erratic, overbearing personality that killed her self-titled magazine and daytime talk show. Add in the pressure she'll feel developing a sketch comedy show for the gay-focused cable network Logo, and you have the makings of a truly classic clash of the daytime divas!

Tabloid writers everywhere are sharpening their pencils...

Are Journalists Selling Their Souls to Catch a Predator?

Now that Dateline NBC has brought one of its sleazy "To Catch a Predator" stings to Florida, I'm even more uneasy about this highly-hyped series -- which involves a news organization deeply with a borderline vigilante volunteer group and law enforcement to a degree we have not seen in recent years.

Some of you out there probably think I'm making too much of the ethical conflicts in assembling this series of stories -- which resulted in the arrest of 24 Florida men in Fort Myers seeking to have sex with minors over this past weekend. Indeed, the attraction of "Predator" has always been its results; who can argue with a dramatic, emotion-charged report which also takes two dozen potential pedophiles off the streets?

But there's lots to worry about. In Fort Myers, police contacted Perverted Justice, a group which engages men online, posing as children to see if they will seek sex from them. The group, founded by Xavier Von Erck in Portland, Ore., acts as a go-between, insulating Dateline NBC from direct connection with law enforcement.

Still, when local laws seemed to require Perverted Justice's "contributors" (as those who engage the men online and via telephone are called) to be deputized, three members did so, obliterating the tissue-thin boundary between police and journalists. That's because NBC has paid Perverted Justice to conduct its most recent stings in Ohio and here in Florida -- the group has even engaged an agent to deal with the network. (This mug shot shows Ellahzar Henson, the one man from St Petersburg arrested in the sting)

In Florida, police admitted they contacted Perverted Justice because they didn't have the expertise or resources to develop a similar sting on their own. Police found a local home and installed their own videotaping equipment in addition to whatever Dateline provided. Once a man entered the home with the intent of having sex with a minor he committed a felony; but police still allowed Dateline correspondent Chris Hansen to quiz the men on their plans -- making admissons on videotape which can and likely will be used against them at trial.

But I am wary of such cozy setups uniting journalists and police. For example, what if Perverted Justice makes a mistake in how it solicits one of the men? Or police are a little rough in arresting a suspect? Or some other problem arises in the process? Will Dateline fairly and fully report on such issues, given they have funded a large part of the effort and have engaged Perverted Justice as a partner -- and through them, local police? Aren't journalists also supposed to keep an eye on police and prosecutors? Can they be objective about how these men are prosecuted, given that they were so involved in their capture?

Von Erck has admitted that the name he uses now is not the name he was given at birth. ABC News has reported that Xavier Von Erck is a psuedonym; Von Erck says it is a permutation of his family name that he prefers for personal reasons and has used for many years. ABC News says Von Erck and other Perverted Justice members do not give their real names for fear of retribution from the men they help expose; Von Erck says he does not conceal his identity.

Von Erck wouldn't tell me his previous name, which made it difficult to run any sort of background checks on him. Has Dateline investigated this? If they have, has it been disclosed to viewers? Has Perverted Justice made mistakes in the men they expose? How are they trained?
And if there are any questions about their methods, does Dateline have an incentive to expose them -- given that they have hired them as "consultants?"

I know this sounds like nitpicking. But this is a slippery slope these organizations are walking on, mostly because everyone gets something. Dateline gets a highly-promotable, attention-getting series of reports which they have been very innovative about refining. Perverted Justice gets a level of publicity they could not have imagined a few years ago. And local police agencies get high-profile arrests of the least sympathetic criminal imaginable.

No wonder there's so little enthusiasm for looking closely at this arrangement.

Newspapers Whiff on Diversity Numbers

For those who case about the ethnic diversity of newsrooms, parity with the community is the holy grail -- a time when the percentage of people of color working at newspapers is equal with the percentages in the general population.

Unfortunately, new numbers from the American Society of Newspaper Editors show that goal is far away as it has ever been -- with journalists of color comprising 13.87 percent of the country's newsrooms, a rise of less than .5 percent from last year. Currently, about 30 percent of the nation's population consists of ethnic minorities; 377 newspapers nationwide have no ethnic minorities working for them at all. See each newspaper's numbers here.

Florida remains a particular challenge. Though newspapers such as the Miami Herald and The Sun-Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale have high percentages (35.5 and 29 percent, respectively), they still lag behind their immensely diversified coverage areas. And papers in two other largely diverse communities -- the Tampa Tribune and the Times Union in Jacksonville -- are among lowest levels of diversity in the state among newspaper which have any minorities on staff (Tribune is at 8.5 percent, virtually unchanged from last year, and Times union at 9.4). Six Florida newspapers had no minorities on staff, all small papers.

The St. Petersburg Times was down -- from 16.5 percent in 2005 to 15.2 percent this year. The percentage of minorities in our five-county immediate coverage area is 22 percent.

Why does this matter? Because a diverse staff often brings voices to the news product that were not heard back in 1978 when the percentage of minorities at newspapers stood at 3.8 percent. And ,as these numbers indicate, we still have a ways to go.

-- A new schedule released by Sirius satellite radio for Howard Stern's two channels shows that the bulk of programming is replays of Stern's morning show, an hourlong news show about Stern's world or an hourlong wrap-up show about that day's Stern broadcast.

This is hardly the picture Stern presented in interviews before the channels were established, where he pitched a variety of shows such as Crack Whore View, an explicit talk segment with Playboy Playmate Heidi Cortez and a range of other ideas. Seems filling two, 24-hour channels with effective, Stern-centered radio has been tougher than the King of All Media has acknowledged.

-- Fox News Channel is in full coverage mode. A natural disaster? Hillary Clinton unmasked as conspirator with Osama Bin Laden? Did Greta finally stumble on Natalee Holloway?

Nope. Just one of their former employees joining the White House.

Once news leaked that he was medically OK to take the job, savvy White House watchers knew is was a matter of moments before former Fox News commentator Tony Snow took Scott McClellan's job as press punching bag -- I mean, press secretary.

I know. He was a pundit and opinion guy, who went from editing the editorial page of the Washington Times to filling in for Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly on conservative-leaning radio and TV shows. Still, it's a sad commentary on how transparent such journalism/political boundaries really are -- as administration speechwriters and pulbicists have turned the WashingtonTimes, Wall Street Journal and Fox News into a revolving door of sorts.

And forget about a new detente between the press and the Bushies. The President has proven resistant to any substative change in his staff shuffling so far. I expect Snow will be forced to continue the useless spinning that destroyed Scott McClellan's credibility, as the administration remains opposed to any press outlet which isn't transparently supportive.

But hey, at least Snow will know the directions to Fox News studios for those spin sessions -- I mean interviews. And how can you hate a guy who plays guitar in a rock band?

George Bush as Media Relations Visionary?

Normally, I regard the Sunday morning gasbag shows as a cynical balance between politics-based mud wrestling and shameless BS -- useful mostly as an indication of how the government and media will spin the latest world-shaking crisis.

But something caught my ear during Sunday's Meet the Press -- I know, this is the second item in as many weeks culled from Russert's weekly pean to institutional political power -- and it came from one of my favorite pundit/journalists, the Los Angeles Times' Ron Brownstein.

What if, he suggested, Bush's adversarial, often-bare-knuckled relationship with the media wasn't just the result of his peculiar, my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing? What if it becomes the standard for press relations in a media-drenched 21st century, where Big Media is too-often its own constituency?

It dovetails with speculation I've seen from smart folks such as NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen, who have long maintained that Bush officials' disdain for media outlets which are not pointedly partisan is not a myopia born of zealotry, but a deliberate strategy of de-fanging independent reporters by removing their access and demonizing their reportage. Rather than accept media's own vision of itself as the public's surrogate, the Bush administration has often treated them like just another interest group with its own agenda -- restricting information and pursuing unauthorized leaks to an extent not seen in recently preceding administrations.

In this light, the roster of Pulitzer winners might be seen as a rallying cry for the journalism industry -- media's way of encouraging its best practitioners to keep chipping at the gray wall of silence Bush has tried to erect around the details of his most controversial public policies.

No wonder conservatives such as William Bennett have been arguing that this year's crop of winners be thrown in the hoosegow; at a time of war, good journalists often believe there is no more important time for government leaders to be honest with the public, while said leaders often feel there is no more important time to keep important secrets close.

Should a CIA employee lose her job because she revealed classified information while helping inform the American people of the agency's secret prisons for suspected terrorists? Should the family of deceased columnist Jack Anderson be allowed to keep classified material he may have obtained illegally because it could reveal his anonymous sources (and ripping it from his family's still grieving hands just seems plain icky)?

We can hope the next president values the press' role as public surrogate more than this one. But I'm inclined to agree with Ron here; regardless of who takes the Oval next, the precedent for leveraging public suspicion against the institution charged with keeping the citizenry informaed has been set. And the growing animosity may be one genie which will never pop back into the bottle.

It's the 11th Hour of a Digital Revolution: Do You Know Where Your Network Neutrality Is?

Yes, it sounds like a buzzword born in some hellish IT training session. But it has enormous implications for your activity online.

What if you found Friendster responded faster and more reliably to your commands than MySpace, despite the fact that you enjoy MySpace's features more? Or if AOL reacted better than gmail, even though gmail costs you nothing?

This is the nightmare scenario of the widespread expiration of network neutrality -- in which companies controlling large segments of the computer infrastructure handling Internet traffic pass each message along with equal efficiency. Verizon executive John Thorne, for example, griped about search engine Google's "free lunch" riding over fiber optic lines they have paid to build out.

The Verizons of the world say Google and Yahoo and MySpace shouldn't get a free ride on telecommunications pathways they have spent billions constructing. Opponents say such neutrality is necessary to ensure the continued free and unfettered operation of the Internet (they might also note telecom companies have reaped millions in free right-of-way grants from local governments so they can run their fiber optic lines throughout the world)

If neutrality goes away, telecommunications companies such as Verizon could theoretically prioritize the traffic related to companies which either pay for the priviledge or are connected some other way, perhaps by ownership. Despite stories in the Wall Street Journal and Washinton Post months ago, I'm embarassed to admit I didn't realize the depth of this issue until I got an email recently from a reader advocating the stridently pro-neutrality Web site, SaveTheInternet. Here's a report making the case for the other side.

What's frightening me: Congress is already involved, taking testimony and considering legislation. And some concerned with the free operation of the Internet warn the seeming solution -- a law ensuring net neutrality in America-- could be worse than the cure, encouraging lawmakers to monkey with one of the least-regulated mass mediums in the country.

Where do you stand?

TV Coverage of Duke Scandal: lots of Heat, Little Light

I'm not sure what to believe regarding the allegations of a stripper that she was raped by three students on the lacrosse team at Duke University.

But I do know the TV coverage of the issue is starting to make me uneasy.

My misgivings started Wednesday, when NBC Chief Legal correspondent Dan Abrams led the Today show with an impressive scoop -- time dated photos of the stripper which showed that, if the time stamps are to be believed, she was not inside the house where the team members had their party long enough for the rape to occur as she described.

How did Abrams get those photos? They were leaked to him by the defense. Why did they leak to him? I haven't asked them, but it could be because Abrams has been a consistent voice challenging the allegations for some time.

On his MSNBC show legal show, The Abrams Report, he has consistently questioned the district attorney's tactics and methods, offering at times, um, involved scenarios to explain why the prosecution may be off base.

For example, in Tuesday's show discussing the past arrest of one suspect in the assault of a gay man, Abrams noted: "Is there a way that the defense can use it to say look, she wasn‘t able to identify these people initially. Then there are these articles in late March about how all the—about how the various players had criminal records. And this criminal record in particular was discussed in newspaper articles. Could the defense say, she maybe picked this one because he had a troubled past?"

Read Abrams' blog and you will learn that he is a graduate of Duke University who is particularly angry at columnists who would connect issues of race and class to the alleged assault of a black stripper by lacrosse players at one of the nation's elite universities.

Abrams' disbelieving tone was echoed by reports I saw today on Fox News Channel, where a story delivered during CNN expatriate Bill Hemmer's daytime show turned a cabbie's story about giving one of the suspects a ride during the time of the alleged rape into a near-exoneration of the defendants.

As I told a colleague, I worry about those who are passionately defending the accuser with little evidence, and I remain skeptical about her allegations. But given the emotional baggage already at play here -- some suggesting political correctness has pushed the prosecution, others saying the desire to defend two wealthy, white defendants is allowing defense attorneys to play the media -- we need journalists who can cut through the noise.

Instead, on cable at least, we're getting talking heads who are riding the controversy to career success. Guess I'm in the wrong business.

Payola Controversy Produces Less Variety in Music?

Those who thought New York attorney general Elliott Spitzer's fine work rooting out payola in the radio industry would produce more variety in station playlists nationwide are wrong, says Don Rose, president of the American Association of Independent Music.

Using emails as evidence, Spitzer alleged record companies and the independent radio promotion companies hired by them were trading cash, laptops, big screen TVs, lavish vacation trips and other goods in exchange for airplay for their clients on radio stations. And because some promoters had exclusivity contracts with stations or chains, only clients of that promoter would find their music boosted.

"Many of the big chains have now told their music programers that they cannot speak to any independent radio promoters,'' said Rose. "Since the major record companies have less need for independent promoters -- they have their own large promotion staffs -- they can still get airplay. Ironically, at this moment, independent record labels find themselves with even fewer avenues for access to programmers.''

Rose had met with an FCC commissioner to suggest the agency help break down barriers for indepdent record companies getting airplay. But then news broke today that the FCC has opened a full-scale investigation into radio payola.

Something tells me the fireworks have only just started.

McClellan's Out: Who's Next?

It was so blatant, NPR pointed it out this morning: As President Bush was announcing staff changes Tuesday, press secretary Scott McClellan stood by his side as a silent symbol of the ineffective old guard.

Bush solved that problem later today with McClellan's resignation, just announced earlier today. A 35-year-old Texan who served as Bush's deputy press secretary when he was governor there, McClellan barely lasted three years after replacing Ari Fleischer in July 2003, departing less than 48 hours after revealing the incoming White House chief of staff's advice that staffers thinking about leaving should get out now.

It has been tough to gauge whether McClellan was simply an awful press secretary or he was made to look awful by the conduct of the administration. Forced to explain constant gaffes and problems -- the President's plunging approval ratings, the vice president's shooting accident, the continuing carnage in Iraq, the Scooter Libby scandal, the pressure to fire Donald Rumsfeld, etc., etc. -- the pudgy press secretary often looked more like a press punching bag, as reporters such as NBC's David Gregory made their reputations by taking apart his thin explanations and doubletalk during nationally televised press briefings.

As some are quick to note, presidential press secretaries rarely last longer than a few years in the job. But on the long list of Bush administration problems, an inability to communicate effectively with the press and the public scores high, making McClellan's imminent departure one of the adminitration's worst kept secrets this week.

Once McClellan has gone on to his cushy corporate executive position -- a lovely parting gift, if you ask me -- we can see whether his successor repeats the mistakes we've seen on his watch (telling reporters he went to bed on the night of Cheney's hunting accident unaware whether the vice president was shot? Riiight).

Among the rumored successors: Fox News employees Tony Snow and Den Senor. Really.

Disappointed Most by Al-Arian Deal: Local Media

News that former USF professor and accused terrorist Sami Al-Arian cut a deal allowing a relatively quick deportation left few people happy. Especially in local media.

From its start with a Tampa Tribune expose in 1995, allegations that Al-Arian helped run the Palestinian Islamic Jihad from a think tank he established at the university have divided the Tampa Bay area's two biggest newspapers.

The Tribune has pressed the question of Al-Arian's guilt aggressively, backing its initial revelations based in part on a 1994 documentary by controversial terrorism expert Steve emerson called "Jihad in America." The Times has often been skeptical of government prosecutors, sensitive to al-Arians claims he was an academic and vicitm of anti-Arab hysteria. Didn't hurt that the scoop of his PIJ activities came from the competition.

With this plea deal -- involving admission to lesser charges -- no one gets all they wanted, media-wise. The Tribune doesn't get the court verdict connecting Al-Arian to specific acts of terrorism, and the Times gets Al-Arian's admission that is snookered at least one reporter here and that his group did indeed pass money to a terrorist organization.

I think this prosecution also shows the danger of corner-cutting, post 9/11 legislation such as the Patriot Act, which seemed to only help the govenrment pull together an overly complex, 51-count indictment that couldn't convince jurors Al-Arian was guilty of anything but prosecutorial overreaching. Turns out, there's a reason for all those laws about gathering evidence: to help convince a jury the case is solid.

Bad prosecution. Lying defendant. An 11-year string of conflicted local news coverage. I have a feeling there's more than a few local media types who will be glad to see this case hit the rear view mirror.

Short Takes

Seems the new graphic look pioneered by WTVT-Ch. 13 for its News Edge 11 p.m. show has migrated to other markets. TV Newser web site reports WNYW in New York and KTVI in St. Louis are now sporting the new look, amid rumors all of Fox's owned and operated stations will get the makeover. And they say the Tampa Bay area is behind the times...

Pulitzer Winners Offer Few Surprises

As usual, leaks about the winners had been floating around the industry for weeks. But the announcement of the 2006 winners of the Pulitzer Prize -- still journalism's highest honor -- were mostly expected because the best work this year was so obvious.

I like that the Pulitzer board split the Public Service award between the New Orleans Times -Picayune and The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Miss. Both papers worked mightily to cover Hurricane Katrina and found themselves faced with the same challenges as the citizens they were covering (see my story on the Times Pic's struggle here; I outline Knight Ridder's tremendous effort to help the Sun-Herald here). That the TP also won breaking news highlights that their work overall was more groundbreaking, and still involved the entire staff.

Among the big dogs, the Washington Post took home four, compared to the New York Times' three -- most for stories which have dominated the national conversation for months, including James Risen and Eric Lichtblau's NSA spying story (NYT), Dana Priest's secret CIA prison stories (Post), and Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi's Jack Abramoff revelations (Post). Among smaller papers, the Rocky Mountain News scored two -- for feature writing and photography -- which was also impressive.

(And for you curmudgeons who always grouse about postings on awards, know that these awards often influence future press coverage by highlighting what the industry values. And I'm not just saying that because Times editor-in-chief Paul Tash sits on the Pulitzer Board and managing editor Stephen Buckley was a judge. Not at all.)

On a personal note, it was cool to see longtime fashion writer Robin Givhan of the Washington Post win in criticism -- both because she's a St. Pete times alum and because, usually, the award goes to something highfalutin' like architecture or classical music -- while other Times alums Priest and David Finkel also help us hometown folks feel good as an incubator of great talent. What makes us feel not-so-good: though rivals the Miami Herald and Sun Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale both were named as runners-up for awards, the St. Petersburg Times was not.

Guess there's always next year.

A New Face for Newspaper Convergence?

Even though it was mostly a statement of priorities other newspapers had adopted years ago, Miami Herald editor Tom Fiedler's memo last week on his newspaper's new commitment to providing material to its web site was notable for its directness.

"Every job in the newsroom -- EVERY JOB -- is going to be redefined to include a Web responsiblity and, if appropriate, radio," read the memo, which noted they hosted 250,000 unique visitors in March, and saw online revenue rise past expectations by $2.2-million. "It means using the Web site to its fullest poetential for text, audio and video...MiamiHerald.com is not an appendage of the newsroom; it's a fundamental product of the newsroom."

It is often tough to know what managers mean when they issue statements like this -- a colleague recalled seeing a statement like this at the Philadelphia Inquirer just before they laid off half their Web staff.

Still, I think this statement, besides outlining an attitude they should have had long ago, highlights a trend I've noticed in newspapers -- the new face of convergence, which lives on the Web.

Less than 10 years ago, convergence was the hot trend in media, pushed by companies which owned print, broadcast and online outlets and hoped to find value by pushing them to work together. The Tampa Tribune/WFLA-Ch. 8/TBO.com is an obvious and nationally-known example, but there's also the Sarasota Herald-Tribune/SNN6 cable newschannel/Newscoast.com matchup and Central Florida News 13/Daytona Beach News Journal near Orlando.

In the past, convergence meant two separate news outlets rooted in different media types working together: TV stations and newspapers learning to share information and work product, for example. But these days, convergence more often means one media outlet dabbling in all the other types on the Web, where video streaming, audio podcast downloads, text stories and Web logs are not only possible, but expected from any news outlet.

"I don’t think the companies that have invested in typical convergence initiatives have been able to show a return on investment," Andrew Nachison, director of The Media Center think tank at the American Press Institute, told me for a story I recently wrote for the RTNDA Communicator magazine. "The combination of a declining print business with a declining broadcast business has not generated growth. Meanwhile other forms of digital media have exploded…and that’s where the audience is."

FCC head Kevin Martin has been speechifying on his plans for relaxing rules barring newspapers from owning TV stations and vice versa, saying such cross-ownership can help reduce costs and spread news content across platforms. But what the covergence mania of a few years ago taught us, is that costs don't go down for news outlets which do convergence right -- there just aren't many people who are eqally good in all platforms, and most stories aren't equally suited to all platforms, either.

Instead, newspaper companies are learning how to do radio by podcasting, and learning TV news by offering video downloads. TV stations are learning print storytelling by producing text versions of their broadcast stories and everyone is learning the web by shoveling it all onto their web sites. The advantage: companies which don't own many platforms don't have to create an intimate connection with a company they don't control, and costs can be controlled better.

I'm in agreement with Nachison when he says "the combination of a declining print business with a declining broadcast business has not generated growth." We see this in companies such as Knight Ridder, Tribune and Gannett announcing disappointing 1st quarter ad revenue figures as declining print dollars more than offset growing broadcast dollars boosted by election-year spending.

So, pay no attention to the companies touting convergence which often own every component of their partnership. In the new on-demand cyberspace universe, convergence on the web is where all the action is.

Sunday Morning Apartheid Remains in Place

Watching Tim Russert lead a blue-ribbon panel on Faith in America yesterday -- an interesting Easter-inspired topic, I might add -- I was struck by an interesting fact. Every panelist on the show but one -- a Muslim scholar -- was white.

Nevermind that the black church has become a prime target of GOP recruiters looking to siphon votes from the Democratic party. Nevermind that a black minister, T.D. Jakes, leads one of the nation's largest churches -- the 30,000-member Potter's House in Dallas -- has pioneered in the mega-church movement and has been described by Time magazine as possibly "the next Billy Graham?"

The exclusion reinforces a report released last year by the National Urban League Policy Institute, which looked at five major cable and broadcast network Sunday morning talk shows from January 2004 to December 2005. Despite an earlier, less extensive report showing a lack of diversity, 61 percent of programs featured no black guests at all and 80 percent featured no interviews with black subjects.

The study shows a wide range black voices are regularly excluded from coverage of issues in which they play a part -- from an examination of Ronald Reagan's legacy to the use of the Seante fillibuster and changes on the Supreme Court. One person, National Public Radio's Juan Williams, notched 40 percent of all appearances, by serving as a regular member of the roundtable panel on Fox News Sunday. Two others, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, accounted for another 25 percent of appearances.

Yes, these shows are insular in general, don't notch lots of ratings and feature lots of blather from political figures. But, like the newspaper editorial pages, these are also places where the nation's leaders gather to talk to each other. And being excluded from that conversation can often keep your priorities from becoming part of the national conversation.

FCC Court Challenge May Redefine Indecency Fight

The four big networks and Hearst Argyle Television have banded together to challenge the recent FCC fines over indecency, and what's at stake may be more than the more than $4-million leavied this year -- but the very idea of regulating indecent content in the modern media age.

As the New York Times pointed out today, networks are sure to make the point that it doesn't make sense to fine networks for indecent content at a time when the average American has more access to more media than ever before. Similar arguments about ownership rulings led courts to throw out the FCC's rules limiting what media outlets companies could own -- many years later, the commision is still struggling to develop new ones.

The FCC's latest push to curb indecency may wind up puishing the courts to take away its power to regulate TV content at all. Poetic justice, some may say...

Does Jared Stern Even Read Newspapers?

According to Editor and Publisher, Stern -- the fedora-wearing, aspiring clothing magnate and freelance writer at the center of the New York Post gossip extortion scandal -- is actually surprised more journalists haven't come to his defense.

Gotta say, his surprise surprised me. Revelations last week about how President Bush authorized the leaks to New York Times reporter Judith Miller have only highlighted how some journalists who have often seemed victims in scandal turn out to be much more -- and less.

And Stern is no Judith Miller. At least she has Pulitzer and notable scoops to her credit; Stern's legacy is a career spent cozying up to the rich and powerful, using technique contrary to the most rudimentary ethics policies at most reputable media outlets. The New York Post is now learning a painful lesson most of us got in J-school; ethics rules barring reports from having financial relationships with sources, taking free items of value from sources and running "blind" items without identifying source or subject (e.g. "A certain New York based gossip writer is facing prosecution for extortion") exist for a reason.

At a time when news outlets everywhere face increased scrutiny from consumers and the Internet exposes every mistake to the world at lightning speed, the danger increases from "ends justifies the means" reporting styles -- whether its anonymous, sometimes manufactured gossip columns, Dateline NBC paying $100,000 to a volunteer group to set up its Catch a Predator series or Washington-based reporters acting as stenographers to power and then hiding their sources.

No wonder the New York Times decided to kill its Boldfaced Names gossip column (Times editor Bill Keller says the decision is not connected to the Stern scandal). Considering how many mistakes it's faced recently, the Times has sidestepped a question many other newspapers will face in the wake of Stern's scandal -- Is the sizzle of a good gossip column worth the risk to our crediblity?

Forget about those who want to minimze Stern's trangressions -- because he offered to be a paid media advisor instead of taking a direct payoff, he's not an extortionist? Ultimately, his greatest achievement as a reporter may be to convince reputable news outlets to safeguard their credibility by dropping ethically questionable gossip reports.

Which, come to think of it, may be a pretty fine achievement indeed.

SHORT TAKES

-- Am I the only one creeped out by the fact that producers of the film United 93 have enlisted family members of people who died on the 9/11 planes to endorse their creepy-ass movie?

-- According to the Radio and Television Business Report, Tampa Tribune and WFLA owner Media General was hurt a bit by dipping first quarter newspaper revenues, which offset slightly higher broadcast profits. Industry watchers expect cost cutting at its broadcast stations, despite 1st quarter ad revenues which rose 7.3 percent from last year, compared to a 8.6 percent dip in newspaper ad revenues. Other newspaper owners report similarly depressing news, with Tribune Co. revenue down 29 percent and Gannett down 11.5 percent in 1st quarter.

-- I can't help hoping that the discrimination complaint by fired CBS producer Raylena Fields is false -- mostly because she says avuncular interim anchor Bob Schieffer is a racist who asked her to serve as his receptionist answering his phones, calling one black employee Brownie and another Boy. She also notes no black people hold a rank above producer on any of CBS' eight newscasts and only one black male has been promoted to a producer job in 10 years. Thanks to Richard Prince's Journal-isms web site for this report.

-- Are ABC's news woes overstated? Buried in New York Observer reporter Rebecca Dana's fine report on unrest at the Alphabet network's news division, she notes that the evening newscast beat first-place NBC among viewers aged 25 to 54, and its critically drubbed, Ted Koppel-less Nightline has earned higher ratings than its earlier incarnation, nearly beating CBS' Late Show with David Letterman. All this, with one top anchor recovering from blast wounds and another preparing to go on maternity leave. Imagine how they might be doing if their luck was actually good?

(Once again, graphics problems with Blogger -- I'm beginning to hate this service's unreliability)

Immigration Protests Draw Thousands: Fox News Starts the Race Baiting

"Do illegals have the 'right' to protest on U.S. soil?" "Are they hurting their cause by marching in the streets?" "Why are those supporting the Senate's recent immigration bill demonized as bigots?"

These are the "fair and balanced" headlines offered by Fox News Channel during its coverage of the Day of Action immigration rallies organized today in cities across the country.

As controversy over immigration legislation has produced public demonstrations involving up to 2-million activists, coverage has become a bit of a Rorschach test for cable news outlets, with viewers able to judge where reporters and anchors stand on the issue simply by the coded language they use.

Predictably, the conservative-friendly Fox News Channel has been toughest, playing to its law and order audience by asking pointed questions about the number of illegal immigrants in the crowd (unknowable), whether orators at the rallies were speaking in Spanish (they were speaking in Spanish and English) and whether attendees were holding Mexican or American flags.

"It appears that people there got the message, American flags don't go over too well on television?" said Fox News anchor David Asman this afternoon while interviewing one activist, implying without proof that the wide array of American flags at today's events were a ploy of some sort.

Given that CNN anchor Lou Dobbs has built an empire on his rants against illegal immigration, I can only dread what will come from his lips later today.

Reminds me of the same sorts of things TV news commentators said during the civil rights marches in the '60s. Back then, there was lots of fear that protestors would hurt their cause by demonstrating publicly, even if they were peaceful. As it turns out, the sight of non-violent men and women hosed down and beaten for peacefully insisting on their rights changed a nation.

As protestors on this issue see the power of their efforts and the veiled racism of conservative critics who once tried to woo their vote, I wonder what might happen this time around?

Local TV Cameras Kicked Off Sidelines: Does it Matter?

I'm about to committ some serious media critic heresy here, and I figure the blog is a perfect place to start.

For a week or so, journalism organizations ranging from the Society of Professional Journalists to the Radio and Television News Directors Association have been complaining about NFL owners' decision to bar local TV cameras from the sidelines of football games. While the owners originally offered some platitudes about cutting down on the clutter of cameras on the sidelines, eventually the NFL acknolwedged it was all about keeping tighter control on images of games.

The RTNDA letter was typical in the arguments it made, noting, "“the National Football League should not be in a position of subverting the American tradition of a free press.”

Hmmm. But what exactly is getting subverted here?

Turns out, local TV crews will still have access to pre-and post-game opportunities, along with highlights of every play provided by the networks. What they won't get, is access to follow specific players around or to film footage for special reports; usually fawning profiles used to flesh out pre-game specials.

Indeed, one local TV news executive I spoke with couldn't understand why the NFL was kicking out the local crews -- since they get mostly boosterish positive press out of the stories the cameras generate, anyway.

So we're not talking about losing the ability to ferret out blockbuster news such as the steroids story -- which criminal investigators mostly dug up, anyway. We're talking about access to shoot b-roll footage of linebackers for feature stories on their charity work.

While I hate to see any abridgement of press access on general principle, TV and newspaper cameras are already given tightly controlled access to a wide array of events in publicly financed buildings, including hockey games, baseball games and concerts. Is this new restriction really awful enough to attract the attention of three different professional journalism organizations?

I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm being hardheaded here....

It Wasn't a Shakedown, It was an Investing Pitch

Those of us who hate the rule-breaking "coverage" presented by newspaper gossip columns such as the New York Post's Page Six, can only wallow in the schadenfreude as Page Six writer Jared Paul Stern tries to weasel out of allegations he shook down a subject for hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide positive (or non-existent) coverage.

Speaking to the New York Times Saturday night, Stern offered the Marion Barry "set me up" defense, claiming that he was asking supermarket magnate Ronald Burkle to invest in his new clothing line. (top is Burkle, bottom is Stern)

OK, never mind that a newspaper reporter developing a clothing line is kinda like Barry Bonds opening a charm school. How backwards is the world of gossip "journalism," when a reporter's defense is that he wasn't extorting a billionaire -- merely suggesting a totally inappropriate business relationship with a source?

Of course, these types of relationships are hardly news in New York media circles. Gossips such as Page Six editor Richard Johnson have accepted free flights, hotel rooms, meals and more from the people they cover, all the while insisting their business and personal entanglements with subjects do not affect their accuracy or fairness.

We are well past the days of Walter Winchell and such wink and a nod reporting (a friend who works at the Post snorted at editor Col Allan's remark about the paper's ethical code -- noting he'd never seen one while working there), and the Stern case may serve to rip the lid off the increasingly troubling practices of such "reporters."

Tinkering with Tampabay.com

Alan Jacobson of BrassTacksDesign in Virginia, loves to buck the conventional wisdom of newspaper and Web design. So he's come up with a typically passionate argument for why the recent redesigns of NyTimes.com and our own Tampabay.com are off the mark.

Alan's points are simple: We don't let top stories dominate the page, we ue too many different logos, we don't mimic the look and feel of the newspaper enough, we don't feature the classifieds prominently enough, we don't use photos well enough and we don't fit all content on a single screen.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

Anyhow, what Alan says makes some sense -- though I always thought the idea of the web was to let people serve as their own editor -- deciding what they think is the most important news in their world. It seems his critique boils down to the notion that these newspaper Web sites aren't laid out enough like newspapers -- which seems a backwards way of looking at a medium limitless as the Web.

His railing against the blizzard of logos and unprioritized stories also reminds me of those who complained -- and continue to complain -- about the cable news channels' penchant for filling their screens with all manner of unrelated information. My hunch is that those accustomed to the breakneck pace of the modern media cycle find such displays ratrher appropriate.

What do you think?

ABC Releases Woodruff Photos

As if the network anchor sweepstakes couldn't get any more unpredictable, ABC last night released photos of an on-the-mend Bob Woodruff -- perhaps to relieve the constant industry speculation that he will never return to anchor World News Tonight.

Woodruff, who is beginning outpatient therapy at his home after being injured on assignment in Iraq, offers a note of thanks on ABC's World Newser blog:

"I have been moved beyond words by the letters, the cards and the genuine good wishes I have received from our viewers. They are a source of strength and a constant reminder of why I am putting all my effort toward getting back to work with you. For now; I am a loyal viewer – proud to watch all of you do what you do best."

Good luck, Bob. If ABC has any luck -- and it hasn't had much lately -- you'll be ready for a triumphant return right when Katie Couric hits CBS.

Vieira Update

Still sassy and personable, Vieira faced reporters during a 1:30 p.m. press conference today noting that her deal with NBC was "conceived in the back seat of Jeff Zucker's car," with the NBC honcho offering her a limo ride in October from the View's studios to Millionaire's studios to discuss the possibility of replacing Couric on Today.

Other highlights:

Zucker predictably shrugged off the notion of passing over Ann Curry and other NBC personalities to hire Vieira, saying "When you have the chance to snag a hall of famer for your show, you do it." (wonder what that makes longtime Today newsreader Curry?)

Legend in her own mind award goes to Curry, who stressed that "I am a hard news woman and that's what I love the best....This will allow me to go out and do big breaking news stories and bring them back to this program." (um, yeah. What were those big breaking news stories you've done, again?)

Despite having built her own early fame as an anchor on Today, making a historic decision to leave there and become the first female network news anchor on ABC in 1976, View creator Barbara Walters offered no advice while Vieira was considering the move and only really talked to her about it a couple of weeks ago -- despite widespread speculation on Vieira's status for months. "I don't think she wanted to feel she was influencing me at all...She called us at 6 o' clock in the morning yesterday and said 'If you would have asked me, I would have told you to go,' " Vieira said. (Riiight.)
Hang in there Millionaire fans -- Vieira says she still doesn't know what will become of her work on the show, given that she has a two-year contract, still. Zucker had to reach back to Hugh Downs to cite somebody who hosted a game show while anchoring Today -- back in the Plestiocene Era. I'm guessing it would be a kick for her to get checks cut by Disney (owners of ABC and Millionaire syndicator Buena Vista Television) and NBC at the same time.

Vieira's In, Let Speculation Begin

Giving Katie Couric her 24 hours of media attention as departing Today anchor, the network confirmed this morning another well-known fact -- The View co-host Meredith Vieira will come to NBC as Today show co-host. Vieira's got more hard news chops than Couric had when she joined Today, with stints as a correspondent and editor on 60 Minutes and time spent as a substitute anchor on the CBS Evening News. Famously, she was frozen out of work on the old-boy-dominated 60 Minutes when she asked for more time to be home with her kids.

Since then, she's recast herself as a likeable TV personality, co-hosting The View and playing Regis Philbin on the syndicated version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire.

"Before (NBC Universal honcho Jeff Zucker) changes his mind, I am honored to accept this amazing opportunity," said Vieira in NBC's press release. "Not only is the 'Today' show a great program within a superb news organization, it's also where America turns to begin the day. I look forward to joining Matt, Ann and Al in giving America the best each morning."

There's a press conference scheduled with Vieira, Zucker, Today anchor Matt Lauer and the show's executive producer at 1:30 p.m. Expect no one to ask why newsreader Ann Curry wasn't considered for the gig.

And former network anchor Connie Chung, in a quote cut from my Couric story today, sees Vieira's victory over younger women like Curry, weekend Today anchor Campbell Brown and MSNBC anchor Natalie Morales as a victory for women of a certain age (Couric turns 50 in January and Vieira is 52).

""Barbara Walters and me...we were asked to join someone who had to move over a few inches...and I don't begrudge those men their resentment,'' said Chung, whose stint as CBS Evening News anchor lasted just two years. ""I know what these networks are like and why they find it so hard to change. I'm just enjoying this moment for women.''

Shocking News: Video News Releases are used More Than TV Newspeople Will Admit

The Center for Media and Democracy has developed a study showing -- gasp! -- that many local TV news producers were full of it when they said Video News Releases are not used often in newscasts.

VNR's are video press releases formatted to look like TV news stories, complete with the employee of a public relations firm delivering information on camera like a news reporter. Such releases are funded by companies -- drug manufacturers, car companies, etc. -- looking to sell the public on whatever is featured in the item.

The Bush administration got a black eye by using VNRs to push government programs. But in their study Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed, the center tracked the use of 36 VNRs to discover that 77 stations had aired the material or arranged satellite TV interviews based on their material, never disclosing to viewers the source of their information.

In 87 airings, they found one station which identified the PR company behind creation of the VNR. No station identified the clients which paid for the item. In every broadcast, stations used different graphics to make the VNRs appear to be staff generated; 60 percent of the time a station anchor or reporter re-voiced scripts provided with the VNR; and 80 broadcasts never sought outside material to supplement the story or vet its claims.

(shown here - the VNR display on the left, the station display on the right)

Though the Center has a finicky Web site, it offers a map showing the placement of stations which aired the VNRs and detailed information on the VNRs themselves (if you recognize any from the Tampa Bay area market, feel free to let me know!)

This is, of course, the unfortunate result of TV stations cutting staff to the bone to make ridiculous profit margins. A researcher for the study said they found 50 percent of their VNR usage occurred between 5 a.m and 9 a.m., when TV stations have skeleton staffs assembling huge amount of TV programming. Add in consultants who urge stations to brand every story on the program with station identifiers -- regardless of where the material comes from -- and you have a serious problem.

An FCC official appearing on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now show has vowed to bring the issue before the full commision with an eye toward prosecuting offenders. It remains beyond sad that the threat of criminal prosecution and fines may be what is needed to stop TV stations from bastardizing their own news content.

Katie's Gone: All Bets Are Off

Today show host Katie Couric finally confirmed this morning what was rumored for months, that' she's leaving the show and heading for CBS, to serve as lead news anchor, manaing editor of the CBS Evening News and a correpsodent on 60 Minutes. She also makes history as the first female to serve as the sole top news anchor in network television.

"SOMETIMES I THINK CHANGE IS A GOOD THING. ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE TERRIFYING TO GET OUT OF YOUR COMFORT ZONE, IT'S ALSO EXCITING TO START A NEW CHAPTER IN YOUR LIFE.SO FOR NOW, IT'S NOT GOODBYE - AT LEAST NOT YET. BUT A HEARTFELT THANK YOU FOR 15 GREAT YEARS."

The news was confirmed in dueling press releases later this morning from NBC and CBS. Couric's contract expires in May, she won't debut on CBS until September, and -- if the New york Times is to be believed -- it's all but certain that The View's Meredith Viera will take Couric's chair when she leaves NBC.

So what's left to talk about? Just a few conclusions:

Conclusion 1: CBS' Moonves Chose a Celebrity Game Changer Over a Slow Rebuild

What CBS News needed was what it got in Bob Schieffer: a traditional news anchor who could build morale, shore up the network's journalism and convince viewers that a post-Memogate CBS could still be trusted to be a news player. Turns out, he succeeded more than anyone expected him to, which means a Couric move to CBS will strand the audience which may have come to enojy his approach.

And though many critics have taken potshots at Moonves -- who clearly doesn't get TV news like he gets TV entertainment -- he didn't have many options. CBS' bench is famously depleted of names; by the time he spent the years required to develop a non-star into the lead anchor role, network TV news might not exist at all.

Instead, he ponied up enough cash and prestige for Couric to throw the network news game into a tizzy for at least a year -- as it will likely take that long for Couric's debut ratings spike to even out in the glacial environment of TV news.

Conclusion 2: Couric's Move Makes Female Domination of the News Business Official

Already, Couric was the highest-paid woman in the TV news business. She, Barbara Walters and ABC's Diane Sawyer were also, arguably, the most powerful journalists on TV for their salaries and ratings muscle. Now, Couric makes it official by taking a job always symbolically held -- at least in part -- by a man.

The big question now, how will CBS change its news program to fit her personality? By virtue of her salary and ubiquity, Couric becomes the 800-pound gorrilla of the news division. Will she shed the softer interviews and feature pieces which made her a star on Today? Or will she craft a new vision for a network newscast which combines celebrity, soft news and anchor accessibility in a way we've never seen before?

Conclusion 3: ABC will be Dragged Kicking and Screaming -- Again -- Into Acknowledging Charlie Gibson's Talent

With Couric debuting on CBS at the same time ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas heads to maternity leave, the alphabet net needs a big name to help capitalize on the industry's continuing turbulence. Good Morning America anchor Gibson has proven himself the network's best utility player, coming back to GMA after the network tried to push him off the show in the late 1990s and building it into a powerful program. Now he stands as the one guy who can take over World News Tonight and present a Schieffer-style alternative to NBC's relatively young Brian Williams and Couric's revamped CBS Evening News.

As somebody who saw his graciousness up close when ABC was trying to shaft him, I can sincerely say it couldn't happen to a nicer guy...

Now that Katie's Gone, Who's Next?

Even though Columbia Journalism Review is already complaining about all the Katie Couric coverage -- wait until she actually announces what she's doing, guys! Then you'll see what media overkill really means -- I couldn't help but think on who might replace our morning show diva.

Here now, is a list of the prime candidates to join NBC's First Family and their qualities. Feel free to spitball on any you think I missed...

Campbell Brown

Current gig: main reporter for NBC Nightly News and co-anchor weekend Today.

Pluses: Actually knows hard news stuff, like members of Congress and how laws get made.

Minuses: So thin she might disappear on that couch between Al and Matt. And did you see that dork (Fox News analyst Dan Senor) she just married?

Ann Curry

Current gig: Unthreatening Today show newsreader, whose cluelessness kept Couric from feeling challenged.

Pluses: Um....let's come back to that one.

Minuses: Inability to complete a five minute newsbreak without mangling words; News sense so keen she's been covering the McCaughey septuplets story for five years.

Oprah Winfrey

Current gig: The real Queen of All Media.

Pluses: Did I mention she's the queen of all media? Plus, her treatment of James Frey shows she knows how to tear an interviewee a new one when needed.

Minuses: Probably not willing to take the pay cut.

Marge Simpson

Current gig: Housewife, mother and caretaker of a blithering idiot.

Pluses: TV-ready hairstyle; Skilled at suffering through cluelessness and great at making dim bulbs look a little brighter.

Minuses: Voice not exactly the best thing to wake up to in the morning. Oh, and she's not, like, a real person.

Looks like NBC's morning franchise will be in capable hands!

TV Week's Couric Story Better Be Right...

....given how many news outlets across the country are presenting the Couric/CBS transition as a nearly done deal, already.

Outlets diverse as the New York Daily News, the New York Post, the Charlotte Observer and Entertainment Tonight all quoting TVWeek in news items which more or less assume she is leaving NBC to take Dan Rather's place as CBS' main news anchor.

The Daily News also quoted the TVNewser website's report that the news division has booked studio space next week at the broadcast divsion's headquarters at w. 57th St. in Manhattan. Could be for a Couric announcement...or not.

It's times like these when I grow frightened at how one report in a reputable news outlet about a highly-anticipated news story can spread across the media wilderness like wildfire. So far, no one else has yet independently confirmed TV Week's report, though many news outlets are already reporting it as fact. (UPDATE - New York Times crack Tv reporter Bill Carter has a report in Tuesday's Times echoing the TV Week story and debunking the possibility of a CBS announcement next week. So at least two outlets have done some independent reporting here.)

On Wednesday, Couric will celebrate 15 years on the Today show, honored with a montage of clips similar to those given her co-anchor, Al Roker, when his 10th anniversary came up recently. Considering how much everyone in the mediasphere is debating her upcoming decision, it seems odd that Couric might choose not to speak on it herself until then or later -- a journalist at the center of media's biggest story right now, choosing to say nothing as she did this morning.

I guess stranger things have happened in media. Like portly middle-class media critics telling a woman who already makes $13-million a year what to do with her career.

And While We're Complaining About News Coverage...

I've gotta weigh in with my other pet peeve: coverage of surveys and studies -- particularly regarding health.

The topic dujour, is a study originally published in the journal Pediatrics which surveyed kids aged 12 to 14 about their consumption of sexual content in media, checking with them two years later to see if they had sex.

"Sexy Media a Siren Call to Promiscuity" proclaimed Reuters' story on the results, while Bloomberg News noted "Teen Exposure to Sex in Media Leads to Intercourse" and ABC News said "Racy TV Shows Increase Teen Sexual Activity."

But, as if often the case in such stories, if you read past the headline, you find a different story. Indeed, it was true that researchers found kids which consumed more sexual oriented media earlier, had sex earlier. What they couldn't say for sure, however, was whether the sexy media caused the promiscuity, or was just another symptom of it.

As quoted by Health Day News, Freya Sonenstein, a professor and director of the Center for Adolescent Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said the study was "carefully executed" but "doesn't settle the question of whether sexy media produces, causes early sexual behavior. Is it the fact that they look at these shows that gets them active, or are they more curious about everything to begin with? Or are there other factors?"

Despite strong words by the study's lead author about the link between the media and sexual behavior, even she had to admit the study didn't prove which caused the other.

In other other words, the study of more than 1,000 kids from three school districts in North Carolina couldn't distinguish between a kid who was more naturally curious about sex, starting off by seeking out sexually-oriented media, and a kid who was egged into sex by the media they were consuming. And because the results for black kids indicated they were more influenced by the attitudes of parents and peers to avoid sex -- even when they watched a lot in media -- I can't help wondering if the kids who were immersed in more sexual media also were immersed in more permissive homes.

Incisive media reports might have zeroed in on this flaw and delivered a more balanced story -- which some did. But the pull to evoke sordid images of teens pushed into early sex by music videos and episodes of Flavor of Love proved irresistible to others, leading to yet another overheated report on a study which yields far more heat than light.

As a Newspaper Expert, He Makes a Great Cablecaster

Just back after a weeklong vacation, and I have a simple question: Does Jim Cramer have any idea what he's talking about?

My query comes courtesy of a buzzed-about column the former hedge fund manager-turned CNBC screamer has just penned for New York magazine about the New York Times. Noting that the storied newspaper is about to dump its stock tables to save space, funneling people to its Web site for stock info, he suggests they go one step further and junk the entire print version of the newspaper.

It's a bold idea. And it's advanced with few figures or financial analyses to back it up. Is this how he picked investments back in his hedge fund days?

A look at the NYT's recent earnings release provides some numbers to burst his bubble. According to their statements, the NYT Media Group, which admittedly includes the newspaper, its web site, a radio station and the International Herald Tribune, made $101-million in ad revenue in February. About.com, the web site whose success inspired Cramer's excited advice, made about $5-million that same month.

The New York Times has a staff of about 1,200, many of whom are considered the best journalists in the industry. I don't know how good the 500 contributors are to About.com, but I bet they don't earn what the newspaper's writers do, or create the same amount of original content.

So if the NYT was to jettison its print edition, how would it make the kind of money needed to support its giant-sized newsroom? And without that newsroom, how does it generate the kind of comprehensive coverage which has become its core brand? And doesn't somebody who calls himself a business visionary have to float at least a few figures to back up such sweeping claims?

Apparently, not in Cramer-land. Let's hope the folks now leading the Gray Lady through its turbulent economic times are living in a different zip code.

NYT Stock Tables Going, Going Gone....

Cramer's rant does make one great point: the time for newspapers to eliminate their stock tables has long since come.

It's something the Newark Star ledger, the Cleveland Plain Dealer and many other newspapers are doing or have considered doing. At a time when rising newsprint prices are threatening an already constricted industry, elminating pages and pages of data that most serious investors already have at their fingertips online makes sense.

The NYT presented readers today with a fancy, two-page graphic explaining how to use their redesigned online portal to track stock tables more closely.
But newspapers have found their stock tables a bit like the sports reports on local TV news. They may only attract a fraction of the audience, but it's a vocal and advertiser-friendly fraction. Some newspaper which trimmed or eliminated such pages have found themselves forced to restore the cuts after reader protest. And with circulation sinking like a stone, the last thing papers should do is snark off loyal readers.

Unfortunately, as with so many changes newspapers are contemplating, the only way to find out how badly such a change will rile consumers is to make it, and weather the aftermath.

What I wonder: Does such a change make older readers -- who may not like the Internet or don't have access to it -- feel abandoned?

As always, feel free to let me know what you think here.

Couric to CBS Against All Reason?

Speculation about Katie Couric jumping ship to CBS continues at a fever pitch across the industry. TV Week reported this morning, the deal is all but finalized, expected to be announced today or later this week

CBS flacks say they have no press conferences scheduled for today and have no idea what the future days will bring. The only announcement they have provided is that weekend Early Show co-host Russ Mitchell will also take over anchoring the Sunday edition of the CBS Evening News.

This means two things: Russ, as we all knew, will not be the main anchor, and CBS is continuing network TV's time-honored tradition of parking promising anchors of color on the weekend shift.

I've already written about how a Couric move to CBS would be bad for her new home and her old one. Let's hope the Queen of All Media and CBS president Les Moonves know something I don't -- besides how much a Lambourghini costs.