CNN, Wolf Blitzer and the “Department of Jihad” smear

Adam Serwer points out that CNN’s Wolf Blitzer has apologized for a segment last week that focused on the odorous “Keep America Safe” ads that charge Department of Justice lawyers with being in cahoots with Al Qaeda terrorists. The segment included a grapic — “Department of Jihad?” that drew some angry reactions.

Here’s the apology:

On Friday, Wolf Blitzer apologized on behalf of CNN for the graphic, saying that “CNN had no intention of suggesting the Justice Department supported terrorism, lawyers at the Justice Department are patriotic Americans and we certainly reject any confusion that may have been caused by our graphic.”

It’s nice that CNN is willing to apologize for the graphic, but the apology suggests that a deeper problem was at play: The segment itself, which featured a debate-style point-counterpoint discussion of the “Keep America Safe” ads. If CNN could straightforwardly answer the questions posed by the ads — and it can, judging by its “lawyers at the Justice Department are patriotic Americans” apology — why didn’t it simply do so instead of opening the issue up to debate on its airwaves?

The answer to that is easy: Because CNN’s job isn’t to resolve questions one way or another; it’s to keep the questions alive for the sake of drawing an audience. That’s not really journalism, is it? The graphic wasn’t really the problem; it was the symptom of the problem.

Will Obama bail out newspapers?

Apparently he’s “happy to look” at a tax break to newspapers that restructure themselves as non-profits. (I thought newspapers already WERE non-profits. Hachachacha.) If government is going to try to bail out journalism without making newspapers a wholly-owned subsidiary like the BBC, this may be the way to do it. The feds have long effectively subsidized newspapers and periodicals through lower postal rates; this seems to me to be an effort along the same lines.

First: Van Jones. Next: Bill Conlin?

I doubt the venerable Daily News columnist actually has anything to fear from Glenn Beck. But the right has found something new to be outraged about, since Obama’s socialist indoctrination of kindergarteners didn’t work out the way they’d hoped: The intrusion of lefty politics into sportswriting. Jay Nordlinger:

I struck something of a nerve last week with a nerve-striking subject: the intrusion of partisan politics into sportswriting. You’ll be reading along, just as nice as you please, and bam: The writer has to stick in some anti-Bush jab, or anti-Palin, or anti-Cheney. (Funny, but the jabs never go the other way — at least in my experience.)

Many, many readers wrote in saying, “Yeah, and you know who an especially irksome offender is?” And they named a “favorite” writer.

So, do you yourself have examples of this politicization of the sports columns? Do you have writers whom you like reading, on sports, but who get your goat by (near-obligatory) injections of politics? If so, please let me know, by using the link over (is that the word?) my name, just above. Reason: I am planning to do kind of an omnium-gatherum.

I’m sure Nordlinger will find plenty of examples: Ideologues usually find what they’re searching for. But so what? Do conservatives have such fragile psyches they can’t take a Dick Cheney joke in the middle of a sports column?

Journalism should save itself by cutting off its nose to spite its face

From the Department of Really Dumb Ideas:

Now is the time for newspapers to do something proactive; time for them to demonstrate what life would be like without them.

It’s time for every daily newspaper in the United States, in cooperation with the Associated Press, to shut down their free Web sites for one week.

Yes. Shut it down. Blank screen. Nothing.

Of course, news would still be reported daily in every newspaper’s printed product. No editor, or reporter or publication would dare shirk their watchdog responsibilities. This isn’t about stopping the presses.

But the Web? People can do without news on the Web for a week. They won’t like it. They’ll complain about it. But, that’s exactly what has to happen before they can be expected to care.

Oh, wow, is this stupid. Here’s a critical question that T.J. Sullivan doesn’t get around to asking himself in all of this:

What if the public doesn‘t care?

Sullivan is right that journalism is in dire straits. He’s right that the audience for newspapers is fleeing to the web. But he’s wrong — deadly, stupidly wrong — that the audience is somehow to blame for all of this. If he thinks newspapers are having a rough time now, wait until they spend a week punishing their customers for joining the 21st century.

There’s no chance that Sullivan’s web boycott will actually take place. But still: Stupid idea.

Another nail in journalism’s coffin

The Chicago Tribune will start evaluating the attitudes of its staffers during performance reviews. Jesus Christ. Have you ever met a journalist with a good attitude? In Chicago? And I hate to point this out, but Tribune’s in bankruptcy right now: Why the hell would anybody working for that company be cheerful? It’s a good think Mike Royko’s dead.

Commenter’s Corner: Journalists shall go the way of the whip and buggy

My friend J.D. from Kansas weighs in against my suggestion that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting expand its mandate (and budget) to subsidize some of the journalism now being done (but not for much longer, probably) by newspapers:

All kidding aside, nothing in the Constitution grants journalists any more or less rights than anyone else, and the reason journalists find themselves in need of a bailout/takeover is the same as the reason the automakers do — the times have passed their industry by, and they were too busy claiming entitlement and a special place in society to notice.

I agree that nothing in the Constitution grants journalists any greater rights to expression than anybody else. And I’ll agree that journalists — myself included — can sometimes get puffed up with our self-perceived importance to society. Some of that is deserved, and some of that is consolation for the long hours and low pay.

And I think J.D.’s comparison to the automakers is instructive, but perhaps not in the way he intends. Because here’s the thing: Both journalists and automakers are still providing something people want. They’re just not doing it in a sustainable way.

Stay with me here.

The automakers, after all, aren’t just providing cars — they’re providing a means of transportation, which is something that people still want. And journalists aren’t just cranking out newspapers — they’re providing information … which, if the 25 percent increase in visitors to newspaper websites last quarter is to be believed, is something people still very much want.

Now if the Big Three die tomorrow — which, weirdly, is only barely hyperbolic these days — there will still be Toyota and Nissan cranking out cars, and that’s not even getting into other providers of transportation. Newspapers are a little different: If the Inquirer and Daily News died tomorrow — which is, weirdly, only slightly less hyperbolic than the Big Three scenario — who is left to do the work of covering Philadelphia?

Philadelphia Weekly, of course. But it couldn’t be just us.

Over time, I imagine, Philadelphia’s army of bloggers would take on a good chunk of the task, but in a specialized way. You’d have City Hall bloggers and police precinct bloggers and neighborhood bloggers — just like you do now, only forced to do some more original reporting than they generally do now. And they’d have to figure out how to make money at that.

And maybe that’s where we’re moving — maybe even ought to move — anyway. But during the transition period, there’s going to be an awful lot of news uncovered, an awful lot of information not available to people who clearly want and need it. Given the respective possibilities of the consequences of industry failure, I could even argue that journalists are more deserving of a bailout than the carmakers.

Probably nobody wants to hear that argument, however.

So maybe modify my CPB idea. Give it a sunset clause — say five or 10 years. Tell the newspapers they have that time to prepare to close or come up with a new revenue model. Mosts journalists work best under deadline, anyway.

How to save journalism?

That’s the question Ben and I tackle in our column this week. I reveal my socialist true colors:

The problem with journalism isn’t journalism. It’s capitalism.

Despite the dire talk about declining circulation and slowing revenues, there’s a growing audience for what newspapers do — but that audience is online, where newspapers saw a 25 percent increase in visitors during the third quarter of this year. Nobody has figured out how to turn that audience into double-digit profit margins for newspaper owners, however, so the bankruptcy filings and layoffs continue apace.

It’s time to consider an alternative model. It’s time for the government to get into the news business.

Actually, it already is: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting spends about $400 million in federal funds each year to subsidize programming on PBS and NPR. Why not double, triple or quadruple CPB’s funding and distribute that money to newspapers across the country? That might someday lead to the ugly prospect of twice-a-year pledge drives by your local newspaper, but it’s worth the risk.

Why? Because journalism is essential to a thriving democracy; that’s why the Founding Fathers protected it with the very first amendment to the Constitution. It’s a mission too important to be left to the mercy of market forces. If the public good is served by bailing out the banks and carmakers, then journalists shouldn’t be far behind. They’ll be much cheaper to save.

Ben, of course, thinks that idea is nuts. You can read his take at the link.