Journal Entry #2 February 1, 2009

Gannett to explore dividend cut to conserve cash

In Smith’s chapter on The Business of News, he discusses how many large companies own large quantities of newspapers. During these tough economic times, not even the large publishing company Gannett is safe. “Gannett Co. said Friday that its board would explore a dividend cut next month as the nation’s largest newspaper publisher looks to conserve cash.” This desperate attempt to conserve cash for basic operations shows not only what a horrible economy we are in but also how bad the newspaper industry has become. Smith talked about how “These institutional investors owned more than half the shares in media companies such as Gannett…many of these investors had no interest in whether the newspapers were performing their public-service responsibilities. They were interested only in profits” (334) If these companies were so profit focused, how could they have lost money?

Quality of the news being covered could be a large factor—if they are suffering enough that they had to “laid off thousands of employees late last year and imposed a one-week unpaid furlough during the current quarter.” I doubt that the quality of their papers is what it used to be. If Gannett was not producing quality news, why would anyone wish to purchase their papers? This seems like a dangerous cycle to be in; cut funding, quality suffers, papers don’t sell, which in turn starts the cycle all over again. “In understaffed newsrooms, news desks may struggle to fill the paper by deadline and may trade ethical concerns for expediency.” (346) With compromised ethics and an obvious rush to fill a newspaper using less money and fewer staff, how much longer will the print journalism industry survive?

Gannett is not the only publisher suffering, as “Other newspaper publishers already have slashed their dividend rates in recent months.” I feel that this is the last straw for the newspaper industry. I doubt it will survive another 5 years at this rate. I know that my parents have canceled their subscription to The Burlington Free Press because the quality has gone down, and it seems like its all advertising and AP stories, with little local content. I have little doubt that other Gannett owned newspapers are faring any better than The Burlington Free Press.

Also referenced: Groping for Ethics in Journalism by Ron F. Smith

Government Lapdogs and Spin Control January 25, 2009

The Bush Administration has undoubtedly had a lot of spin control to do over the past 8 years; they’ve certainly had enough to cover to have gotten a lot of practice. The article that I found, however, is an all new level of spin. It deals with the “Shoe Incident”, where an Iraqi journalist threw a shoe at the former president during a press conference on 15 December. This specific article is a wonderful realization of what Smith discusses on page 253. “Today, image-making and spin control are instruments of government strategy.” The article discusses how the former First Lady describes the incident as a show of freedom. Because the Iraqis are so fortunate to have us as their occupiers, the journalist involved will not be executed; though I doubt he’ll get away without any punishment. What a wonderful world we live in! Thank you, former Administration, for telling us how free and liberated the country is! Perhaps if we had actually given them anything close to freedom, the man wouldn’t have to give Bush such a wonderful farewell gift.

The article continues to describe the freedom that Afghani women have, with the “option” of wearing a burqa. Even though it “worries” her that many women choose to wear it because they are scared. I’m surprised that in such an obvious PR recovery attempt, they would even bother mentioning something negative. And not only did she cover such topical issues as Afghanistan and Iraq, but also went on to decry the way that Katrina was covered by the media.

This “article” reads more like an article suited for a women’s magazine; the content is so light and the intentions are obvious. If this was edited by any at Fox News, they should be ashamed at not covering their tracks better. While this is far from “real news”, even a fluff piece shouldn’t be so blatant. It’s an exercise in a lapdog media, instead of a watchdog media. Everything about this piece is sucking up to the former First Lady, along with a delightful dash of anti-feminism.

What really struck me was how the death count for Katrina was not nearly as high as reported, but instead “An estimated 1,800 people died in the storm and the flood.” It seems to me that this is an acceptable number to the Bush Administration, which disgusts me. How many people have to die for it to really count? The way the article handles seems to be part of a massive spin control amount.

I feel like this article was written for those who already cared about the Bushes, as it was available on the Fox News website (who obviously cater to conservative Republicans). It was a good enough spin to console that audience, while I was only disgusted and not in the least bit comforted. The Bush Administration has used the media to spin itself into being something other than the horror that it was. It’s amazing how cooperative the media was in all of this, especially in the build up to the Iraq war and after 9/11.

The entire article feels like a much less dangerous example of what Eisenhower did in relation to the spy plane incident in Russia. Now that we have a new administration, the news reports often on how horrible Afghanistan has become; I doubt that in the month that has passed since this article was written that any woman outside of Kabul doesn’t wear a burqa.

The Fox News article can be found here

Also Referenced: Groping for Ethics in Journalism, 5th Edition by Ron E. Smith