Day Two: Tiptoeing Around the Elephant at Centerstage

Lurking in the background of most every discussion in today's sessions at the Media Giraffe conference, was a single question.

Can newspapers survive?

And how you answered that question, seemed to depend on what side your bread was buttered.

Folks here with roots in mainstream newspapers were confident -- with almost desperate conviction -- that today's dead tree merchants will survive the sinking circulation, dipping profit margins, shrinking advertising base, restless stockholders and intensifying Internet-based competition.

People in the web world, however, couldn't wait to pronounce modern-day, mainstream media as a Dead Industry Walking -- propped up by clueless advertisers, graying audiences and consumer habit; too dumb to step off the train tracks even as the oncoming locomotive of digital media rushes towards us headlong.

And as much as attendees here wanted to pretend everyone was on the same team, frictions between the two sides popped up at the most interesting moments.

"I do think newspapers are dead...their souls are dead," said Paul Bass, the scrappy founder of a hyper-local web site in Connecticut called the New Haven Independent. "We are at a wonderful moment where we're going to take (journalism) back...we don't have to be stuck in this idea that monopoly capitalism is the only way to go in a community."

The newspaper faithful were heartened by a presentation from Stephen Gray, executive director of the American Press Institute's Newspaper Next project. Charged with helping newspaper companies across the country find strategies for coping with their fading industry, Gray touted the concept of "disruptive innovation" cited by noted consultant Clayton Christensen.

As Gray explained it, businesses usually innovate by focusing on the needs of their upper-level customers; if a product is good to serve their needs, it can serve just about anyone who wants to use it. But occasionally, an innovation will come that is targeted to non-consumers or lower-level consumers -- usually cheaper, more efficient, more simple to use and/or centered on an aspect of the industry which seems impractical to the leading companies.

Often, the innovators don't even know why their product is successful with customers. And by the time the industry leaders figure out what is happening, their business has been turned upside down. So Gray suggests all a business need do is learn how to think like the disruptive innovator, anticipating lower-level customers' needs (My fave quote: "Someone who buys a quarter-inch drill doesn't want the drill; they want a quarter-inch hole.")

Though the reasoning sounds simple -- I left the session thinking, if Times editors had given such a talk to the staff, much confusion about the daily TBT*'s mission would have been answered -- Internet-based folks scoffed at the presentation, noting correctly that companies which have resisted innovation for decades hardly seem poised to figure out innovations even those already on the cutting edge don't understand. (My second favorite quote: Gray noted one newspaper manager who said, "I don't know what to do, but i'm ready to do it.")

Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism pressed his notion that traditional journalists are no longer gatekeepers of information, but authenticators of it. Advocates for net neutrality legislation noted that, if the journalism industry mostly migrates to the Web, a lack of enforced neutrality would give telecommunications companies control over every major media outlet.

And though some in the newspaper industry have expressed skepticism about a public relations executive leading the investors group which bought the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News, Inquirer editorial page editor Chris Satullo said the sale -- closed Thursday -- left him feeling like a freed inmate.

"For 17 years, I felt like I was in prison," said Satullo, describing former owner Knight-Ridder's insistence on saving money at the expense of innovation. "And just because some people have worked so long in a top-down, cost-cutting environment, they may not be able to make the transition."

In the spirit of trying to ask the right questions, I also wondered:

If this was a conference about the future, why were so few session panelists younger than 45?

If online journalists depend on mainstream media stories to fill their web sites and mainstream journalists read blogs all the time, why is each group so intent on making the other irrelevant?

If newspaper companies are so interested in innovation, why were so few top editors at this conference?

Much as I have come to enjoy spending time with conference organizers, I must confess, they made some mistakes.

The showcase panel of Thursday evening, exploring issues of ownership, had no women or people of color included. Organizers seemed unprepared for the political dimension of sessions -- despite a conference title that promised discussion on "sharing news and politics in a connected world." And a panel on net neutrality lacked anyone working to defeat neutrality legislation because they weren't invited until a few days before.

Adds up to a quirky conference where what isn't said is almost as interesting as what is.

Barbara Walters Explains Herself -- and Steps Deeper in It

In explaining how Star Jones was unceremoniously forced off The View this week, head diva Barbara Walters took the wimpy route -- blaming her unrenewed contract on ABC executives, claiming the show had planned to go along with whatever BS reason Jones wanted to give for her departure.

That's right. Walters admitted she and the show were ready to lie to viewers - and the world -- to help Jones save face. Worse, she and the other View ladies had denied rumors Jones was leaving the show for months -- despite the fact that they knew Jones contract wouldn't be renewed, even then.

Walters' explanation for Jones' ouster in the first place? "The audience was losing trust in her," she told the New York Times. "They didn't believe some of the things she said."

Babs better be careful. Or she might wind up in the same predicament -- for the same reasons.

MSNBC Switches Up Again

When NBC's cable channel first debuted, it featured "repurposed" stories from Dateline NBC and pre-taped shows featuring Matt Lauer and others narrating canned stories or interviews with celebrities. And the viewership was awful.

So why is the channel going back to so-called "longform" programming July 10 -- with two hours of taped programming each night from 10 p.m. to midnight? And Tucker Carlson gets new MSNBC general manager Dan Abrams' former time slots at 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., providing a double-dose of overly entitled, egotistical white guy musings. The only good thing about this new schedule announcement, is that Rita Cosby's show goes bye-bye, as Rita announces the MSNBC Investigates pieces airing at 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. and does assorted specials (has Abrams ever even heard her gravelly, tone-like-a-cement-mixer voice?)

Finding the Future of Journalism by Asking the Right Questions

We have three days to figure out the future of journalism.

It's a tall order, to be sure. But if anyone can tackle it, it may be the unique collection of bloggers, print reporters, broadcasters, academics, activists and visionaries who have come here to the University of Massachusetts at Amherst for a unique conference held by the school's Media Giraffe Project: Democracy and Independence -- Sharing News and Politics in a Connected World.

And if last night's opening session was any indication, the road to the futre will be a sprawling, disorganized, inclusive, incisive, occasionally combative struggle to meet our digital future while cleaving to the standards and craft of journalism's past.

"Everyone with a laptop can get into our act," lamented featured speaker Helen Thomas at the conference's opening discussion -- a panel/town hall meeting dinner that asked "How will journalism stay relevant?" "Bloggers are not necessarily jounalists. The changes are revolutionary, but that doesn't mean we need to sacrifice who we are and what we strive to be."

Led by journalism iconoclast Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine and Vin Crosbie of Corante Media Hub, the opening discussion was as inspiring and frustrating as most conference discussions -- veering from the Same Old Arguments ("The key to the relevance of mainstream journalism is good stories," said Boston Globe editor Marty Baron early on) to Off Topic Harangues (this being a Northeastern college, several questioners from the audience demanded to know why journalists didn't cover the 2000 election scandal, 2004 election scandal and the Bush national guard stories).

But buried in the predictable stuff, were some powerful ideas about coping with the disruptive effects of digital technology, an increasingly elusive audience and an overtly manipulative government.

Key quotes:

"For too long, people have been disconnected from democracy," said Larry McDermott, publisher of The Republican newspaper in Springfield, Mass. "The way you connect them to democracy, is you give them a voice. What we have to do, is look for opportunities to be a connector -- because people want to be connected."

"If (journalism's future) can't be about verifiable facts which hold the powerful accountable, we are truly going to waste three days," said Ellen Hume, a professor at UMass-Boston. "My students have been taught that media is music and movies...weapons of mass distraction...I used to joke that the news will be reduced to web site for people who don't get the jokes on the Daily Show."

"I think news organizations are turning themselves into entertainment organizations to reach out to a public increasingly turning away from them -- especially young people," said John McManus of GradetheNews.org.

As usual, Jay Rosen of New York University offered some of the most cogent ideas (see his super egg-headed PressThink blog here), noting that newspaper circulation scandals were a form of denial, staving off the readership decline fueled by digital media by pretending it wasn't happening. Noting that the internet has turned every news outlet into "a receiving device as much as a sending device," he spoke of finding ways to turn the expertise of groups of non-journalists in the community into investigative journalism.

It struck me, that the ground we're charting is so new, we struggle to even ask the right questions. Digital media has thrown so much into the air - who are consumers, who are reporters, where are advertisers -- that traditional journalists are having a tough time wrapping themselves around all the change. (Jay has an attention-getting piece in the Washington Post, talking about the new balance of power between consumer and producer, and the "people formerly known as the audience."

Jarvis, a rail-thin, evangelically energized advocate for reinventing journalism in the digital age, struck the most hopeful note early on: "I hope this conference isn't about complaining. Or about the past. Or 'us' versus 'them'. It's about success stories. There's invention, creativity -- bringing new things to journalism, which it sorely needs. Journalism needs re-invention in a world where there are so many possiblities. So let's have at it."

I'll let you know, through this space and in the newspaper, how it all works out. (See some parts of the conference webcast live here; I'll try to wave if I land on camera)

Cynicism About N-Word Earns Me a Shout Out

Those of you blog yourselves know there are times when your work is a stream of consciousness trail directly from your subconscious to your keyboard. I think that's what happened when I urged readers to get over the n-word controversy, and now I've been called on it by my good friend, Richard Prince.

Richard referenced my blog in writing about a story in the Washington Post's series about black men, in which a man recounts how prison guards used the word nigger on him so much, his own name began to feel alien to him. With incidents like this in the world, he argued, surely the harm of the n-word is apparent and obvious.

But I still remain ambivalent about a word which means so much to black people. Yees, hip hop culture has made the term more ubiquitous -- in the same way people seem to sling the word bitch around much more casually than ever before. But that is always the case with language, and denying our people's conflicted, inconsistent relationship with this word by trying to ban it will only camouflage the issue, I fear.

Sorry Richard. But I think it is time for black people to accept that we will always use the word differently than white people -- and we will always use the word.

Got $150? Then You Can See CBS' New Anchor Early

That's the price tag for tickets to the July 10 fundraiser at Ruth Eckerd Hall starring CBS' new game-changer. She's expected to drop in for a VIP reception, a speech at the fundraiser and some quality time with a handpicked crowd of 80 folks giving her feedback on Tampa Bay area issues. It's an inspired bit of publicity -- reminiscent of the lower-key affiliate tour her former colleague Bryant Gumbel undertook when he took over CBS Early Show many years ago.

Here's hoping it leads to a better result.

Can Reporters Committ Treason By Doing Their Jobs?

It was an incendiary news report about a top-secret government eavesdropping program that sparked punitive legislation from Congress and calls for treason prosecution from admintration officials.

But, as University of Minnesota law professor Jane Kirtley noted a month ago in a letter to U.S. House members, government officials in 1986 eventually got over an NBC report that an accused spy may have tipped the Soviets to a submarine-based listening effort and stories on intercepts of Libyan government communications.

Back then, CIA director William Casey wanted to prosecute news organizations for treason and U.S. Sen. Ted "bridge to nowhere" Stevens wanted to pass a law requiring those convicted of espionage to forfeit all property tied to the crime -- meaning news outlets found guilty might have to surrender their businesses to the government.

And now that least one Congressman has called for the New York Times to be prosecuted on charges of treason -- just one month after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refused to rule out such a prosecution for the newspaper's revelations on domestic spying by the National Security Agency -- Kirtley wonders if we have not traveled back to the future in a striking way.

"It's kind of spooky that almost exactly 20 years ago this happened...(and) although the espionage laws have never been used to prosecute the press (in America), that's not to say someone, somewhere, might not try," she said. "And if we are going to allow the prosecution of the press for publication of certain facts, what we've done is create an official Secrets Act. I have to think that criminalizing certain types of information is not what the founders of this country had in mind."

But in the wake of stories last week in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times detailing a global effort to track terrorist funds, some politicians and pundits were advocating exactly that -- with the New York Times taking the brunt of criticism as the lead news organization in reporting the story and for its perceived history as a symbol of liberal news bias.

"The New York Times Just Doesn't Give a Damn About National Security" read the headline on a dispatch from the conservative Media Research Center advocating the Times be prosecuted for treason. Republican U.S. Rep. Peter King -- who once accused the Times of colluding with then-Presidential candidate John Kerry to bolster his arguments against the Iraq war -- said the newspaper was "more concerned about a left-wing elitist agenda than it is about the security of the American people." Even local radio personality Tedd Webb advocated charging "anybody who derails a top secret government program designed to protect us" with treasion and executing them.

Administration officials from President Bush to vice president Dick Cheney and outgoing treasury secretary John Snow have all condomned the stories, saying their publication has reduced the program's effectiveness. In a letter to readers Sunday, Times editor Bill Keller noted the newspaper had consulted with administration officials for weeks, considering their pleas that they hold the story, ultimately concluding "our default position -- our job -- is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair nd accurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or report fully enough."

Strip away the election-year posturing and partisan catcalls, and you find a tension Kirtley said has always existed between government, which works to keep its secrets, and the press, which seeks to expose them. One question that surfaces -- as government officials and supporters ratchet up the criticism of news organizations which reported the banking story, do they run the risk of permanently hampering independent reporting on national security issues?

It's one thing to say the Times should have respected national security enough to hold a story on a program which seems legal, if invasive. It's another to say they should face criminal charges for making the decision to publish. But in the ever-heated national debate on these issues, the two positions are growing tougher to distinguish.

"One of the things the government has worked hard at doing is convincing people the press is irrelevant at best and at worst is the enemy," she said, noting some called for the Chicago Tribune to be prosecuted when it revealed that allies had cracked a Japanese cipher code in World War II. "The question is: Who decides what information should be kept secret? Are you going to take Dick Cheney at his word, or are you going to want to find out for yourself?"

But reporters thought they had a legal right to keep confidential sources secret, until a series of court decisions winnowed away that priviledge at the federal level. And though the war on terror is conflict with no clear end or defined conclusion -- will every terrorist who wants America destroyed ever be vanquished? -- arguments that rules of reporting should be different at a time of war carry weight with some people.

Still, when I searched Google on the terms "journalism" and "treason," the countries which surfaced read like a who's who of media oppression: China, Russia, Ethiopia, Peru. (Times business reporter Kris Hundley had a moving story Sunday on a Chinese man whose speech to western media earned him a beating which took away his ability to walk). Is this the tradition of press freedom America should be emulating?

"I find it very distressing when folks don't seem to recognize the importance on an independent media," said Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press. "I've got this notion that somebody should keep an eye on what government is doing -- and that job falls to the press."

New Website for local Fox affiliate WTVT-Ch. 13

For many long years, local Fox affiliate WTVT-Ch. 13 has offered a web site a step behind other area Tv stations. But that will change soon, with the debut of a redesigned site in line with the company's goal of developing a souped-up, common style for web pages of every station. With the URL myfoxtampabay.com, the new site offers a greater mix of news stories and features -- still in beta testing...

Can Cancer Struggle Make Good Radio?

Like a lot of media reporters, I got to know Leroy Sievers when he took over as executive producer of ABC's Nightline. Unusually forthright about issues involving the show, he was a creative storyteller, great interview subject and even presaged all the behind-the-scenes blogs now deployed by network TV news departments with a widely-read email update that truly pulled back the curtain on decisions at Nightline.

Squeezed out of working on the show amid the tumultuous revamp that also, eventually, encouraged longtime host Ted Koppel to hit the road, Sievers spent a year teaching, volunteering with the Red Cross and helping Non-Governmental Organizations in Africa before planning to come back to the news biz.

But his cancer had other ideas. He thought he had beaten colon cancer five years ago, but problems with slurred speech last December ("I thought no one noticed...but a friend thought I was drunk when we went to the movies together," Sievers says now) led to a chilling diagnosis: six months to live.

All of this wouldn't have risen above the level of news business gossip if Sievers hadn't also decided to share his struggle with National Public Radio's audience, crafting a pair of evocative, emotional commentaries on his struggle with cancer that Sievers says brought more public response than anything he did on Nightline.

On Monday, NPR will unveil a ramped-up version of Sievers' reports, debuting the first of a series of monthly commentaries for Morning Edition, along with weekly podcasts and a daily blog, all contained under the heading, My Cancer.

"One of the things you face is quality of life vs. quantity of life," said Sievers, who now has a 13-month prognosis and inspiration from a friend who has survived 10 years with a similar ailment. "Do you stay on chemotherapy and feel (bad) all the time? Do I get those new eyeglasses I need? I haven't bought clothes, because I'm not sure I really need them."

Given all the tumult in the media industry these days, this is a story that seems too small for consideration, I'm sure. But Sievers' commentaries have been moving and compelling, and I think if you spend a little tiem checking them out, you may find the education about life with a terminal illness worthwhile.

Traitor or Truth Teller? New York Times in the Cross Hairs Again

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum echoed the administration's strategy for handling yet another national security scoop by the New York Times: play the liberal media bias/national security card.

"I think it would be hard to come closer to the classic definition of publishing the departure time of a troop ship in war time and inviting the enemy to shoot a torpedo at it than this," said Frum today on Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz's CNN show Reliable Sources. "Here's a program where there's no allegation of abuse....Yes, look, there are a lot of people in the government who are disgruntled about the Bush administration's approach, and they have taken on a program of sabotage and leaking, but it wouldn't work without the complicity of the papers. This is as big a media scandal as it's possible to be."

The NYT angered administration officials by denying their request to kill a story on how they have kept tabs on the international flow of terrorist money by examining records of wire transfers using a wordwide network of bankers. The bankers have defended handing over the info to the U.S., and conservative pundits have gone apoplectic over the exposure of another spying program they believe is necessary to hold terrorists at bay.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich responded by noting that the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times also published accounts of the same program, and that the administration didn't begin to brief Congress about it, until they realized the newspapers were going to publish the story.

It's a classic conundrum for journalists, and one that I think the general public is often too dismissive of. Perhaps people assume their financial records won't be examined, but this Washington Post article examines the privacy implications of such a program.

Freedom of speech and privacy vs. security? This seems to be the question continually at hand as a secretive administration pushes more invasive surveillance programs and an aggressive press works harder to ferret them out -- facing subpoeanas for confidential sources and diminishing protection in the courts.

Supporters of the administration say the war on terror requires such measures. But this is a war with no geographic boundaries and no timetable. America-hating terrorists have existed for a long time: are we to accept secretive, undisclosed extensions of presidential and intelligence power until the last al-qaeda cell is vanquished? Or beyond?

I know that as a journalist I'm biased toward good stories and skeptical of government. But such revelations seem to me the only way to ensure such programs are implemented the way they are supposed to be. And, in the end, that's part of our job -- isn't it?

Pay-to-Play Content Becomes SOP in Media

The same day Mother Times published a piece by me about a new morning show coming to WTSP-Ch. 10 in which advertisers will pay to be featured, Advertising Age published the results of a poll conducted by PR Week indicating "that nearly half -- 48.9% -- of senior marketing executives admit they have paid to have commercial messages integrated into print and broadcast editorial content."

Certainly, that was my perception in researching Wednesday's story, which noted Gannett Corp. has made a particular priority of bringing these shows to its stations, creating such shows in St. Louis, Denver, Sacramento and Tulsa.

Less than three years ago, when Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz wrote about the same activity at WFLA-Ch. 8's Daytime, Sen. John McCain threatened Congressional action and trade publications mistakenly accused local media of ignoring the story.

The fact is, both Tribune TV critic Walt Belcher and I had done stories outlining WFLA's pay-to-play provisions in Daytime when it debuted, but no one seemed to care. TV executives, in particular, like to accuse me of nitpicking and unfairly criticizing their actions when these subjects come up -- as if it was the height of naivete to expect TV stations not to try confusing their viewers with barely-disguised infomercials.

As media fragments throughout the digital sphere, perhaps it is naive to expect TV stations won't work hard to wring every last dollar from their airwaves. But at a time when media and journalism crediblity is near rock-bottom levels, do viewers really need another reason to mistrust what they see onscreen?

Dave Chappelle Preview

I didn't have much room in today's Floridian article on Dave Chappelle to recount many of the jokes I saw during his opening night stand at the Tabernacle in Atlanta Saturday.

Which was just as well, because when I tried writing down his routine, I found that vocal inflection and profanity adds so much to his work, that many of his bits didn't make any sense when reproduced for a family newspaper.

Still, if you want a taste of what you might see during his shows tonight or Saturday -- or what you might be missing -- here's a few choice quotes.

"Everyone got mad at Bush for the war because he lied. Let me tell you something about this war. First of all, maybe its all of our faults. Yeah, I said that. Maybe Bush can't do something like that all by himself...(And) what if Bush came out and told us the truth....In 10 years we're broke. We have nothing. But I have a plan. We're going to rob Iraq...You want nice things, you want big cars, well this is how we pay for this s--- America. The whole country would be shocked...nobody wants to hear the truth."

"Two years ago, I used to make fun of celebrities, until I saw what they were actually going through. All that s--- that happens in the press, that is called corporate discipline...Look how they do Britney Spears. She's a mother for the first time in her life and the media's like, (in official-sounding voice) 'She's a bad mother. Look at her driving with the baby in her lap with no car seat.' So? Remember when we were kids? Our parents used to smoke in the car didn't have no f---ing seat belts on. All kinds of s---. Leave her the f--- alone."

On why legendary pimp Iceberg Slim perfectly captured how capitalism subjugates people: "A good pimp knows, there's a finite amount of s--- a woman can do before she loses her...mind. So a good pimp can read her miles. That sounds bad, but they do it to all of us. That's why so many of us work from nine of five. Because nine to six might kill a b

Could This Be the Key

Could This Be the Key to Katherine Harris' Campaign? I saw this on YouTube and couldn't resist linking it. As a big fan of The Waitresses and finely-honed political satire, it was irresistible...

Rather Gone, Germaise Disciplined: Tough Day for TV News

Thanks to a quirk in the various systems here at Mother Times, my short piece detailing the one-month suspension of local TV reporter Don Germaise did not make it online -- prompting at least one web outlet to proclaim his discipline a quiet one.

I'm told the memo issued by management at WFTS-Ch. 28 regarding the whole thing was plastered all over the newsroom. Don basically agreed to submit to an interview in exchange for getting an interview with a local white separatist for a story in May-- confirming the setup in emails, a video clip and a signed release form. Of course, the separatist edited the video to make it look as if Don agreed with his philosopy and posted it on the Internet.

"After a thorough review of the events, we have determined the newsgathering process for the story had serious breaches of our company policy and our ethical and journalistic standards," the memo read, in part, saying Germaise would return to work July 16.

Though Germaise first insisted to me, and presumably his bosses, that he didn't agree to a quid pro quo arrangement, the separatist then posted all his evidence that Don knew what he was agreeing to and was enthusiastic about the arrangement. As this memo makes clear, however, Don was disciplined for making the arrangement, not for lying to his bosses or me -- suspended for a month starting last Friday. Blame corporate red tape for the delay between publicity over Don's actions and the punishment.

I'm told there's some anger at WFTS over the way our free tabloid tbt* handled my story -- the headline IDIOT was plastered on the front cover -- and I think they have a point. I tried hard in my reporting to present an evenhanded account, which was scuttled by a pointed headline and blurb in tbt* making fun of Germaise.

It is a troubling dynamic -- tbt*-style readers want us to draw the obvious conclusions in stories (I had quotes in which Germaise himself admitted he hadn't acted intelligently) but sometimes those conclusions take what some subjects believe are cheap shots at people already in difficult circumstances. Can a newspaper owned by a school for journalists which resists such practices also print a tabloid which crosses that line?

Rather Moseys Into the Sunset

Such is the shape of modern media that we all knew this was coming long before it ws announced.

It started with stories placed in various high-profile media outlets announcing that CBS executives were downplaying their connection to longtime anchor Dan Rather, refusing to extend his contract. Then Rather himself provided interviews about his negotiations. And word leaked that his leading alternative job offer was from Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban's nascent HDNet channel.

Now, it's official. Rather is capping 44 years at CBS News still engulfed in the cloud of disrepute that colored his exit from the CBS Evening News.

Is it Karma for a guy who reportedly pushed out Walter Cronkite and elbowed aside Roger Mudd to get the top job? A final swipe for a dude who progressively became too weird for a TV audience to tolerate? Or an ignominious end for a top anchor and reporter who gave his professional life for the Tiffany Network's news division?

Since Rather has turned down my requests for an interview, I may not have those answers for a while. But CBS News has long wanted to put the stink of Memogate behind them, and I'm not surprised that a barely-ceremonious exit for Rather is part of the prescription. (Check Harry Shearer's wry aural satire on the whole situation here)

Courage, Dan. I've a feeling that's something you're going to need for a while.

DEGGANS PUNDIT ALERT

I'm on Ed Gordon's News and Notes after a long absence, discussing expaned police search powers, crime in New Orleans and Jay-Z's problems with Cristal. (Former St. Petersburg Times reporter Marcus Franklin busts open the Cristal controversy for the Associated Press here)

Connie Chung Leaves Awful Memories

Connie Chung Leaves Awful Memories
Hard to believe this woman -- who single-handedly proves here why MSNBC never should have given her and hubby Maury Povich a show to begin with -- once co-anchored a major network newscast...

Dave Chappelle and Me: Two Brothers Meeting in a Pop Culture Whirlwind

It wasn’t like a visit to Lourdes. Or even a visit to Graceland.

But I still feel a little differently about life, after meeting Dave Chappelle.

I had the pleasure in Atlanta last night. Mother Times was cool enough to jump at my idea of advancing his sold-out Tampa-area shows this week by reporting on one of his first performances in a brief bust of Southern stand-up dates -- jetting me to the A-T-L for the second of six sold-out shows at The Tabernacle, a reconditioned, downtown church.

The real story drops in Thursday’s Floridian, where I’ll try dissecting Dave’s latest bit of madness while figuring out why fans still love this guy – who essentially walked away from them and $50-million, scuttling one of TV’s most groundbreaking new comedies. But I can slip a few spoilers here for those nice enough to put up with my blog blather.

The first surprise of the evening was seeing Mos Def, Chappelle’s buddy from his kickass concert film Block Party and a talented actor/rapper in his own right. Def later refused to speak on why he was helping open Dave’s shows with about 40 minutes of his own songs – or even to confirm whether he would be joining Dave here at Ruth Eckerd Hall – but he offered a pointed defense of his friend during the show.

“He said f--- being a star; I want to be a man,” said Def, drawing sustained applause from the sold-out crowd. “That’s about being a human being – one of my favorite groups out there.”

To those of us who have covered showbiz for a while, it sounded like one of those typically self-conscious justifications celebrities use to explain their latest excess. But, after braving an hourlong wait after the late show to quiz him while he signed autographs for the faithful few waiting by his tour bus, I’m convinced its what Chappelle believes, even as he struggles to explain a career-halting move he barely understands, even now.

Answering that question – explaining why he walked away from a lucrative contract with Comedy Central on the cusp of Eddie Murphy/Chris Rock-level fame – proved the backdrop of Saturday’s show; a theme to which he would return, again and again.

Meeting someone like Chappelle is always an odd experience for me. He doesn’t know me from Adam, though I have interviewed him a couple of times and have written several extensive pieces about his life and career. As a fan, I worried another unique comedy talent was being lost to the horrible vortex of high-level showbusiness and white-hot public attention; as a journalist, I was bummed that a major subject wasn’t available to me.

Indeed, my ATL trip was made necessary by the fact that Chappelle isn’t doing any press for his shows, these days (Why should he? Tickets for the Hotlanta shows were selling at $150 each last time I checked online -- double the $73 face value -- and Ruth Eckerd seemed to sell out his gigs fast as they could add them). His publicist ignored an email and three phone calls; even the tour’s promoter pointedly refused to speak with me on telephone to arrange my paid-for press ticket, sending just one email with nothing but the time of the show for my ticket. (at least he didn't hang up on me in mid-interview, as happened here)

But to his credit, Chappelle was friendly, if guarded, when we finally did meet, confiding that his departure wasn’t about succumbing to pressure as much as it was about refusing to give in to “The Game” – an exploitive relationship with the Hollywood powers that be which he explains during his show with voluminous references to legendary literary pimp Iceberg Slim.

His wide swath of newfound fans don’t always get his heady mix of streetwise philosophy and showbiz cynicism – the nosering-wearing woman sitting next to me Saturday was less-than impressed with Mos Def, Iceberg Slim or the fact that Dave’s actual stage time clocked in at about 60 minutes (and, of course, some bonehead had to interrupt Dave' flo to scream "I'm Rick James, bitch," evoking a bit the guy laid to rest two years ago).

But their heady devotion proves his career has some hang time yet – as comedy’s brainiest slacker struggles to find a career that can advance his art while reaching a crowd larger than a nightclub audience.

As Dave himself probably knows, that struggle is as compelling as any story he’s ever told onstage – a fitting Father’s Day present for a media/pop culture writer who is heartened by the thought of Chappelle continuing to subvert the Hollywood entertainment/exploitation machine from within.

New Audience Measurement for TV Raises a Simple Question

When I heard Nielsen Media Research was announcing a new initiative which would revamp its TV ratings research system, I had a simple question:

Has its ratings system even been totally believable?

It's an open secret among many in the TV industry, epsecially at the local level, that a high degree of skepticism exists about Nielsen's head-counting procedures, for many reasons. The biggest hole in their old system was that it didn't measure out-of-home viewing -- which meant TVs at work, health clubs, bars, college dormitories and hotels had no place in national TV ratings (which, of course, thrilled TV outlets like CNBC and ESPN to no end).

Such a weakness was bad enough when most cable systems had 50-something channels. But now, you have people -- like yours truly -- who do about half their TV viewing through digital video recording devices. You have young people who do a tremendous amount of TV viewing through the Internet. And with content moving onto cellphones and BlackBerries and iPods, the need to monitor outside the traditional living room box is greater than ever.

Nielsen promises its new "Anytime/Anywhere" measrement system will handle out-of-home viewing and integrate Internet TV viewing with its traditional ratings reports. The compay has already announced partnership with cable TV companies such as comcast to monitor video-on-demand viewing and pay-per-view programs.

I hope Nielsen's new system brings a better sense of who is watching what when. I also hope it leads to expansion at Nielsen's Oldsmar facility as company officials claim. But the company is going to have to work hard to convince TV executives who always viewed their data with a skeptical eye.

TV Fine Increase Deepens Indecency Debate

Preisdent Bush's signature on a bill increasing fines for indecent broadcast content tenfold means different things to different people.

Anti-indecency advocates say the $325,000 fines are necessary to make giant media corporations such as Clear Channel and Viacom care when a infraction is lodged. Free speech advocates say the fine just encourages broadcasters to censor themselves at a time when the Internet is redefining the concepts of what "broadcasting" really is.

And there's the fact that its a major bill aimed at the sensiblities of conservative voters right before the midterm elections.

Regular readers of this space know I have often criticized broadcasters for not being more sensitive to the legitimate concerns of viewers upset by the growing coarseness of broadcasts. They have mostly themselves to blame for a environment where conservative politicians -- desperate for achievements at a time of falling poll numbers and growing voter discontent -- are willing to beat the indecency drum.

That said, I expect broadcasters now have even more incentive to challenge the legal right of federal officials to police their content through the current system of complaints and fines. So the upshot of all this may be a final Supreme Court showdown on whether the FCC has a right to say anything when Janet Jackson's top comes off.

Imagine the kind of Super Bowl halftime we'll have if the courts say they should shut up.

DEGGANS ON TV

I'll be appearing on Rob Lorei's Florida This Week on WEDU-Ch. 3, discussing the FCAT, Florida governor candidate Jim Davis, Katherine Harris and many other issues I'm not nearly qualified enough to opine on. Check it at 8:30 p.m. tonight opr 12:30 p.m. Sunday.

Blogging Revolution or Empty Gimmick? I'll Report, You Decide

It's getting to the point where people can slap words like "blog," "interactive" and "on demand" on just about any media offering to get some attention.

My case in point this time around: an operation called Tampa News Blog.

A friend at Mother Times turned me onto a press release announcing the debut Wednesday of this new outlet, which promised to be "the first known news blog that provides only local news and does so in an interactive blog format" -- a finely-honed definition if ever there was one.

Turned on at noon Wednesday, Tampa News Blog is to be the first of 50 city-specific local news blogs offered by the Orlando-based Blog Spot Network (at least, according to their release). Along with an array of posts featuring news stories culled from all the big local news outlets, there are places for users to place free classified ads selling everything from boats, cars and condos to houses and recreational vehicles.

But the problem with the new Tampa News Blog is that, well, it's um....

Boring.

I mean, the idea of a site which gathers together some of the free content spewed online by the Times, Tribune, Bay News 9, et. al., makes loads of sense. But there's not many stories here and the subject matter -- Tampa Police Debut Rescue Vehicle, RNC Site Visit to Tampa Coming in August -- is hardly the most interesting stuff available.

Seems to me that the mainstream news outlets all have good to middlin' collections of local news online, and quirky blogs such as Sticks of Fire and the Weekly Planet's Blurbex get the super-local, interesting stuff. So why should anybody read Tampa News Blog?

They better figure out an answer to that question, quick. Because people will only be impressed by fancy catch phrases for so long.

When it Rains...Well, You Know...

The media gods decided to make all hell break loose this week, media news-wise, which makes bloggifying it all quite a challenge.

Do I chortle at Dubya's awkward attempt to embarrass Los Angeles Times writer Peter Wallsten for wearing shades during a Presidential press conference, only to find out later that Wallsten is legally blind and has a optic disease which gets worse upon exposure to UV rays, like, sunlight? (Wallsten gets the grace under fire award for shrugging off Bush's faux pas, by saying "I never told him.")

Do I marvel at the way CNN ran several in-depth stories Wednesday on cyber-activist B.J. Ostergren, a Virginia woman who makes the point that too much personal information is available through government records online by posting personal information of celebrities she's discovered online -- including Gov. Jeb Bush's social security number?

Why do I marvel? Because CNN aired incredibly similar profiles of Ostergren and her work in May of 2005, featuring her on its news show Daybreak and Lou Dobbs Tonight. How much press does this woman need for the same protest and stunts?

Do I wonder about the way ABC anchor Bob Woodruff dropped by ABC News headquarters in New York Tuesday -- an appearance one ABC News staffer said left few dry eyes in the building? It came one day after New York magazine published a blistering account of the jockeying for the World News Tonight anchor chair which cast new anchor Charlie Gibson as a tough, ambitious guy who pushed Diane Sawyer and Elizabeth Vargas out of the way to seize the job.

Why do I wonder? Because the New York story also cast Woodruff as a slowly-recovering shell who recently "had a piece of prosthetic skull put in his head" and whose "memory and speech are still shaky." Woodruff's fit look and sure speech seemed an effortless, living rebuttal to a story filled with lots of gossipy, anonymously-sourced material.

Do I puzzle at the way Tribune Co. seems to be unraveling before our eyes -- as the company's second-largest shareholders call for the business to break up its array of TV stations, newspapers and other media outlets to improve the stock price (see the letter here). The New York Times had a compelling piece Wednesday about the Chandler family, former owners of Tribune's Los Angeles Times, and why they oppose current management's efforts to buyback stock and prevent shareholders from forcing a sale as happened to Knight-Ridder.

Seems these days in media, bigger isn't necessarily better.

Finally, do I wonder at the apparent lack of news available to the folks at the Newspaper Association of America's trade journal Fusion, which decided to feature a Q&A with yours truly in its Summer 2006 issue?

At least I have an answer for that one: I'm going to be grateful for the attention and keep my mouth shut. These days, any publicity is great publicity.

Alberto Just a Test Run for Hurricane-Focused News Media -- and Viewers

Is it me, or was Rob Marciano a little, well, disappointed?

Watching CNN's coverage of Tropical Storm Alberto's approach Monday, I saw weather anchor Marciano stationed in Cedar Key, trying valiantly to make breezy, cloudy weather sound a bit more ominous than it turned out to be.

Luckily, Alberto never strengthened into even a weak hurricane and the problems from the weather have been limited to flooding from the storm surge, which impacted areas where Marciano wasn't standing. Even now, on Tuesday afternoon, reporter Dan Lothian is pointing to stiff winds and flooding in Steinhatchee with a dramatic air, despite the fact that there doesn't seem to be much going on.

I actually had to watch the approach of Alberto from south Florida, where I had gone with my family for a long vacation weekend. forget about snorkeling or any outside activities in the Keys Saturday or Sunday; Alberto dumped enough rain on the state to make all that unworkable. The only benefit was that I didn't have to sit through hours of local TV guys using their Super-Duper Doppler 10,000 to hype coverage of a storm which thankfully turned out less destructive than it could have been.

I didn't get back to town until Monday night, so perhaps I should ask you guys -- Got any fun weather coverage gaffes (or triumphs) to share? In addition to helping the weather chasers figure out how they want to handle heavy storms this season, Alberto should help you figure out who you can trust when the doppler really hits the fan.

New MSNBC Team Announced

Okay, never mind that MSNBC's new general manager, NBC Chief Legal Correspondent Dan Abrams, has never held a TV management job besides supervising his own MSNBC show. And forget that the brain trust at NBC didn't take his show, The Abrams Report, off the schedule when it announced his promotion (reportedly, he will step down from the program soon).

But why, as my pal Aaron Barnhart astutely noticed on his blog, did they also let Abrams keep his OTHER, other job as the network's top legal reporter?

Isn't this a network that is placing third among the three cable outlets and desprately in need of a ratings draw who isn't named Olbermann or Matthews? Don't they need a general manager who doesn't also have another job? Or an executive-in-charge who isn't also overseeing the Today show? (at least they reportedly put Weekends with Maury and Connie out of our misery; maybe the PR department got tired of taking press calls on Maury's sexual harassment lawsuits)

NYT Story on Minority Source List Seems a Little, um, Thin

I was struck by the Times' story Monday on the drive to create a minority source list at the Detroit Free Press for several reasons: not least of which was my effort to create similar lists as organizations where I've worked.

First, I was amazed that creation of such a list would merit a seven-paragraph story in the nation's paper of record, particularly since every newspaper where I've worked has had a similar list of minority sources -- that's over 15 years at four different newspapers.

Second, I was surprised at this paragraph: "Some in the newsroom objected, saying sources should be quoted because they were the most credible on a topic or the most articulate, not because they fit an ethnic profile. They said they feared the day they might have to delete an insightful quote from a majority source in favor of a less useful quote from someone who would help the newspaper meet corporate goals."

I must say, my exprience on this issue has been much different. Here at the St. Pete Times and the other papers I've worked, the list serves two good purposes: providing a good lineup of resources when reporting stories that involve race issues, and encouraging reporters to consider finding qualified experts of color when assembling stories where any expert opinion will do.

One study of network news shows from 2001 found just 4 percent of expert sources were black American men, compared to 12 percent for white American females and 62 percent for white American males.

So it seems to me the bigger, demonstrable problem, is underrepresentation of people of color in stories where they could easily serve as experts.

Other Stuff --

Somebody asked what I thought of the Kansas City Royals yanking the credentials of two radio reporters who asked tough questions at a press conference. To me, it smells like something they did to appease the owner, who was probably personally snarked off by their behavior. I also wouldn't be surprised if they quietly reinstate their credentials once the owner's ire has softened a bit and press criticism reaches a crescendo.

Unprofessional, to be sure. But often the way the sports media cookie crumbles.

If A Black Newspaper Uses the N-Word, Is It Still Wrong?

I've known Chicago Defender executive editor Roland Martin for years, and he's a talented, brash, in-your-face brother who knows sometimes the best way to make a point is to make a splash.

Which is why I wasn't entirely surprised to hear Brother Roland had set tongues wagging yesterday with his cover for Chicago's venerated black newspaper, which included the word, "Nigger."

The actual headline, according to Editor and Publisher, was "TAKE A STAND. Black America, isn't it about time we made up our mind about the word nigger?"

The headline and subhead were an incendiary introduction to a more conventional Associated Press story about the implications of falling taboos about use of the n-word, including a defendant in an assault case who is trying to avoid being charged with a hate crime by saying "nigger" is no longer a racial slur. (somehow, perhaps with more than a few well-placed dollars, he got Randall Kennedy, author of the book Nigger to testify on his behalf)

Even E&P's coverage of Roland's aggressive move unsettled some: The trade magazine chose as its headline, "Black Daily Shocks Many With Front-Page 'Nigger' Headline," printing the racial slur rather than euphemizing it, as so many traditional news publications do.

E&P's story says Roland "thought the headline would finally spark a debate the word in the African-American community" about a word that is used variously as an insult and a term of endearment.

What I think Roland did was get a bunch of publicity and reader attention by slapping a jolting headline on a story that broke little new ground.

It didn't really take Roland's wire story and column to spark a debate among black people on this issue. It's something black folks are always talking about, especially those of us who straddle the different worlds of white and black America. Some have decided to never use it, others have accepted that curious double standard where we use it ourselves and deny it for non-black people.

But that's nothing new. Gay people call each other the three-letter f-word, women call each other the c-word, Irish people crack drunk jokes and Jewish comics spend hours on their lack of athletic prowess and suffocating mothers.

People use terms about themselves and their own groups that would be considered horribly insensitive if used by someone outside the group all the time. Why is it such a big deal when black people do it?

Frankly, I think it is time black people disengaged from this phony debate. Yes, many black people have a double standard about use of the word nigger, white America. Get over it. You got to use it for 400 years; it's time to leave it alone for our expert utilization. (Roland has written a column saying he won't use it anymore; wonder if that extends to his headline writers?)

And maybe the next time somebody decides to shock readers by placing a racial epithet on their front page, people won't react so predictably.

Harry Shearer: Voice of the Simpsons Becomes Voice for Media Criticism

One of the biggest recent regrets I have professionally was my failure to reach comic Harry Shearer when I was preparing a profile on Arianne Huffington and her Huffington Post blog.

That's because Shearer's voice has become one of the most interesting things in that space, providing endlesly insightful commentary about media miscues in an area called Eat the Press.

One of his most recent, spot-on, commentaries took on Huffington herself, as one of a group of pundits who downplayed the Arms Corps of Engineers' admission that the levees in New Orleans failed because they didn't build them correctly -- not because a hurricane knocked them down.

Shearer, a New Orleans resident, has been tirelessly passionate in his criticism of media outlets which have gotten the Katrina story wrong, finding time ocasionally for a bon mot directed on other fronts (he notes, for example, that conservatives who decry the bad news reporting from Iraq also have to take on the U.S. Iraq ambassador, who describes conditions worse than many news reports).

The HuffPost this week has seriously amped up its Eat the Press section, with showcase links to loads of media stories ranging from the kerfluffle over Ann Coulter's latest heretical rantings to allegations the Boston Herald plagiarized a story on plagiarism. It's a sleek-looking space with tons of information; a welcome addition to the world of media watching.

The only drawback: poor Harry is scrunched down toward the bottom of the page, crowded out by more professional, splashier voices. Hope they don't forget to keep giving special prominence to the guy who made that section crackle when it was just a nook inside the HuffPost machine.

I mean, it's easy to hate a guy talented enough to go from voicing Monte Burns to voicing sharp insights about media miscues (he, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert continue to prove that satirists are often the most savvy observers of media). But I'll keep scanning Eat the Press for his delightfully ascerbic wit, as one of the few celebs on HuffPost with consistent, engaging things to say.

Brangelina News Crosses into the Absurd

Is this really worth $4.1-million? (I'd publish the photo here, but Mother Times don't have the legal muscle Gawker does, so I'll let them take the hit).

Shout Out From CBS Appreciated

Deep in their blog entry about CBS' exhaustive coverage of the bomb blast which killed two of its news staffers and seriously injuroed correspodent Kimberly Dozier (they even had footage of an extremely battered-looking Dozier being loaded onto a transport plane to the U.S. yesterday), CBS' Public Eye blog noted my post comparing their response to ABC's much more guarded reaction when anchor Bob Woodruff was hurt in January.

Thanks guys. Even though many officials at CBS denied reacting to ABC's example in deciding how to handle releasing information on Dozier, they acknowledged being aware of their rival's reaction. Always nice to see when one's thinking might impact someone higher on the media food chain.

Dateline, Sopranos, Strippers...Must be Tuesday in Florida

It's the lazy days of summer and I've got the world's worst toothache (root canal scheduled for Thursday a.m.!), so forgive me for not having a good post up sooner this week.

What I do have is a bunch of smaller observations that may or may not be worth noting, starting with....

Dateline Crosses a Thin Line, Again

Anyone watching Dateline NBC Sunday saw a new investigation by "Catch a Predator" star Chris Hansen which bore all the classic trademarks of that show's stories -- questionable research tactics serving an attention-getting, bust-the-bad-guys kind of story.

This time, the subject is counterfeit prescription drugs. On Sunday, the newsmagazine offered a compelling look at a black market industry which is effortlessly sneaking expertly counterfeit drugs into the U.S., where some patients are dying from taking substances they think are drugs but are actually ineffective fakes.

Unfortunately, Hansen gets to this story, in part, by pretending to be a company interested in buying the fake medicine -- setting up a hotel room with hidden cameras to record his conversations with Chinese counterfeiters.

For journalists who make it a point to never lie or misrepresent themselves when researching stories -- I just attended a speech by Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post writer David Finkel who refused to disguise his identity while working a story in the Middle East -- it's just another example of a big media outlet cutting ethical corners which tarnishes all of us. For people who just want to see the bad guys go down, it's another Dateline victory.

Does Anybody Pay Attention to Movie Critics Anymore?

The Da Vinci Code: "Only occasionally thrilling." The Los Angeles Times

X-Men: The Last Stand: "Driven to dumb itself down." Entertainment Weekly.

The Break Up: "Dull and Trivial." The New York Times.

All three movies garnered lackluster to downright hostile reviews in major media outlets. So why did each movie make box office history, with Da Vinci Code garnering $154-million worldwide, X-Men earning $120-million and The Break Up snagging $38-million in its debut weekends?

My bet: blame a curious combo of critical pack fever and an audience desprate for escapist entertainment. All these movies had been highly-hyped for months -- which often fuels anger from critics who are forced to endure the brunt of the marketing push -- translating into harsher reviews than usual and greater audience desire.

My advice: even though critics expect to be on the wrong end of a trend now and again, folks in the movie mob better revise their expectations or readers will tune out even more than they already have...

Even Denis Leary Doesn't Get the Sopranos' New Season

Just after finishing Sunday's season-ending episode and realizing I had spent an hour watching A.J. Soprano and the suicidal nurse from ER get laid, I flashed back to a conversation I'd had with Rescue Me's Denis Leary about The Sopranos.

I had always assumed that my frustration with this increasingly directionaless show was a personal thing -- I just didn't get it. But Leary, a fan of the show since it's start, admitted to me he's been throwing objects at his TV screen through this entire, sad sixth season.

"I've spent the last four weeks saying 'What the Hell is going on?'" said Leary, who has structured his Sunday night scriptwriting routine to make room for watching the series' new episodes. "We're stuck with all these minor characters. Jimmy (Gandolfini) and Edie (Falco), I could watch them all night...but we get the minor characters and the kids and stuff. And that Carmela went to Paris and didn't have an affair is really pissing me off."

Join the club, Denis. I remember Sopranos creator David Chase telling me -- displaying his trademark, Hollywood optimism -- that he never expected the show to last past its first season. And that was, indeed, the last time the series had anything resembling an overall storyline or direction, charting Tony's slow realization that his mother wanted him dead (He was supposed to kill her at the end of the first season, but the popularity of the show prompted Chase to change that plot point).

I'm convinced that's why so many critics glommed onto the Gay Vito storyline when it unfolded -- finally, there was some kind of story at hand. This season is proof: you can have the greatest characters in the world. But if you don't make them do interesting things, we might as well be watching Walker, Texas Ranger.

Strippers Bring Dialogue

Our story last week on the mother/daughter stripper team brought lots of angry mail and prompted a friend who teaches school to email me in complaint about the subject matter...Wild 98.7 even organized a call-in segment asking area strippers if they would dance with their mothers (most said they wouldn't, or their moms weren't exactly in shape for it, even if they wanted to).

The typical arguments about glorifying the lifestyle or the explicit subject don't sway me much. I liked the story for its access and descriptiveness -- occasionally, even family newspapers have to delve into edgy subjects. But I think it only pierced the surface, as most such stories do.

We often write about the women on the front lines of Florida's sex industry as if the business stopped there. Sometims, it feels to me like describing the auto industry by hanging out with a used car salesman. Given that Tampa is listed third in the number of strips clubs per capita, there is clearly a gargantuan sex industry in place here which area newspapers rarely outline.

I'll be more interested in seeing a deeper, more substantive look at the area's sex industry -- which is now so powerful, that it can even ignore local laws against strippers touching customers with little concern.

CBS Learns From Unfortunate Precedent

Feel like you know just about everything regarding CBS correspondent Kimberly Dozier's recovery from a roadside bomb blast in Iraq?

Perhaps that's because the network seems to have learned from the unfortunate precedent set by ABC News anchor Bob Woodruff, whose injury from a bomb in Iraq sparked intense coverage focused on every detail of his treatment and recovery.

CBS publicity types have sent several email press releases a day updating Dozier's progress and providing transcripts of coverage to air on the CBS Evening News.

Correspodent Sheila MacVicar has been offering stories every day on Dozier's progress, including this one on a soldier who gave the reporter his Purple Heart, while CBSNews.com has also been packed with information. And journalists from other news outlets have gotten tremendous access, from the Los Angeles Times' Matea Gold noting Dozier's first written communication after regaining consciousness, to CNN's interviews with doctors who treated her just after she arrived at a military hospital (where they happened to be shooting a documentary).

This access and information stands in contrast to ABC, which was much less open about Woodruff's injuries and tightly controlled the information released. Of course, Woodruff's injuries had much larger implications for the network -- from the moment he was injured, industry watchers wondered if he would ever return to the anchor desk, just weeks after being named co-anchor of the evening news show.

In a small plug, I'll note that I and fellow Times reporter Vanessa Gezari are scheduled to appear on WTVT-Ch. 13's Your Turn midday talk show, speaking on the coverage of Dozier's injury (and the death of her two co-workers) and the issue of journalist safety in Iraq. I've done several pieces on the subject and Vanessa has worked in Afghanistan, where safety was a serious issue.

If you're not doing anything at 12:30 p.m. Tuesday, tune in and call in with your thots...

New Today Set Needs Some Tweaking

It was a great idea: come back from Katie Couric's widely-watched departure with a new set, a new attitude and new future.

But the Today's show's decision to broadcast from an intricately-designed outdoor set over the summer while workers revamp their streetside Studio 1A, hit some serious potholes today, in the form of street noise and knuckleheaded fans.

Bombshell newsreader Natalie Morales seemed to suffer the most during today's inaugural broadcast outside, drowned out alternately by passing traffic, the noise of some nearby machine and fans who kept screaming during her newsbreaks. (this photo shows American Idol finalists Taylor Hicks and Katharine McPhee perfoming this morning in the new digs)

When NBC first announced it would use the airconditioned, open-air set for this summer -- a holdover from its coverageof Olympics in Italy and Greece -- I wondered what would happen during a rainstorm. But it seems their biggest problem right now is the street noise that is so uniquely New York.

Good luck getting past that one, guys...