OT: The Best News bureau in the US

busterkeaton wrote on 3/21/2006, 2:36 AM
The American Journalism Review has a story up on the Knight-Ridder chain of newspapers. Knight Ridder owns a bunch of local, smaller market newspapers and unfortunately do not drive the conventional wisdom and news narratives like the behemoths in NY and DC. KR was just sold and the new owner is intending on keeping it intact, especially their Washington Bureau which has an excellent track record of getting recent news right. By now it is common wisdom that the pre-war intelligence the hawks were pushing was shoddy and that Ahmad Chalabi and the INC were supplying a lot of this bad intelligence the hawks kept pushing. Knight Ridder reported that before the war. They also reported senior intelligence and military officers had a lot of doubts about the Iraq intelligence but were being ignored. They keep getting there before the NY Times and the Washington Post and they keep getting it right. Unlike the Times they didn't have to write a 13,000 word correction two years later. They didn't have to explain how that the aluminum tubes the Administration was claiming were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs" were, in fact, the wrong length, the wrong width, and the wrong thickness for a centrifuge. Oh, and also, they were covered with a special coating that would have to be completely milled off.

Why did KR get it right, when most others were getting it spectacularly wrong? They weren't playing the Washington game of "exclusives," of getting access to official sources and anonymous quotes. The aluminum tubes story is a perfect example of the NY Times being spun like a top by its anonymous sources

When I ask Walcott about the bureau's philosophy, he says, "It's an impulse, when you're told something, not simply to write it down and report it but to ask whether it's true. The whole truth. And that's an impulse that I think rightly covers everything everybody here does."

Along with haste, sensationalism, and a host of others, a cardinal sin of the American media, is competitive jealousy. They are loathe to credit a big story to a competitor. So readers of the Washington Post or NY Times would not be aware of the battle over intelligence that Knight Ridder was reporting.

If you want some of the best news coverage in the US check out the Knight Ridder Washington Bureau website.

Comments

Wes C. Attle wrote on 3/21/2006, 5:07 AM
Quality of media reporting is an interesting subject. The quality of all things media, including news, has dropped with the cost cutting of most major news corporations. The problems extend from newspapers, to local and national TV news, to online media. I have the opportunity to watch this first hand in my day job.

Most media companies no longer retain their own editors or reporters. They get cheap content off the wires, pre-packaged and ready to be published. And the wire services no longer maintain many editors or reporters either.

The news wires use small bureaus of "news compilers" who are rewarded for churning out high volumes of news, not quality news. These news compilers heavily favor news stories that are already pre-packaged at the source. So government sponsored news with a little spin is very quickly regurgitated back through America's big news corporations. News from corporate press releases or packaged press conferences with pre-written content dominates America's news delivery services today. Only freelancer investigative story is a rare occurrence these days. Probably less than 5% of the total corporate news content.

Quite often when I click on a big news story on CNN.com, MSNBC.com, or even ESPN.com, I get the same story with the exact same words. It makes it really difficult to find more details on news events that are important to me. You can see this often on news.google.com. Search for news and you see the same story reprinted in dozens of local papers or news sites across the country.

What's really scary is the recent popularity of the White House sponsored fake news, or "Video News Releases" More here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Video_news_releases

Aside from that stuff, I actually do not think the media is liberal or conservative these days. It's just pretty much watered down, inaccurate, and lacks depth.

Somewhat related, have you folks followed the saga of "Everywhere Girl"? She is the symbol of the corporate trends of late. Outsourced everything, and stock footage at all times. This is why it's so hard to find a stable job as a photographer for an advertising agency or other company these days. It's also really funny!

More on Everywhere Girl here: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24735
richard-courtney wrote on 3/21/2006, 7:29 AM
I sometimes watch the wild feeds on satellite. (Ku band for those
that remember satellite dishes bigger than a pizza pan).

It is fun to see the reporter nodding his/her head at the end of the
piece. "Back to you in the studio" then nods like responding to
post story thank you. I taped one and then taped the local station
and saw the piece being used to make it sound like they are a huge
news provider.
johnmeyer wrote on 3/21/2006, 8:16 AM
Most media companies no longer retain their own editors or reporters. They get cheap content off the wires, pre-packaged and ready to be published. And the wire services no longer maintain many editors or reporters either.

This is very true. Also, most of the people I know in the media are not exactly those that graduated at the top of their class. Our local newspaper is owned by Knight Ridder (at least for the moment) and almost no story of which I have had first-hand knowledge has been reported with any accuracy. These aren't political stories and this has nothing to do with that whole discussion. Even basic stuff like dates, times, names -- even who actually won a race -- all these are screwed up.

One problem is that journalists have absolutely no standards. By contrast, a lawyer must pass a state bar exam in order to practice. You doctor must complete extensive training, and must be granted a license. Teachers in public schools must obtain a state credential. You wouldn't take your taxes to an accountant if they hadn't obtained a CPA credential, something that requires passing a test. The engine on the aircraft you fly on cannot be serviced unless that technician has passed a certification course.

I have never understood why journalists are given the keys to something so powerful that it is referred to as the "fourth estate" -- a virtual fourth branch of government -- yet we require absolutely no test of competence either via a certification board or via the election process. Our collective desire to keep the press free of influence does not trump the need for basic competence.

This isn't a liberal or conservative issue. I think people on all sides of the political spectrum have had personal experience with having the basic facts of a story completely butchered. Can you imagine NOT having certification for your doctor, lawyer, accountant, teacher, airplane mechanic? There ought to be at least an industry-sponsored certification, something that is REQUIRED in order to be a reporter.

craftech wrote on 3/21/2006, 8:37 AM
There ought to be at least an industry-sponsored certification, something that is REQUIRED in order to be a reporter.
===========
The notion that an "industry-sponsored certification" would insure accuracy in reporting seems a bit of a stretch don't you think?

John
busterkeaton wrote on 3/21/2006, 10:30 AM
My Dad was an accountant who did income taxes and who was not a CPA. It took him 7 or 8 years to finish college itself because he was an orphan who working full time to put himself through and because he was drafted into the Army in middle of those years. He also prepared income taxes on his own and at another tax practice. I used to work in that tax practice in HS and College. The way the system worked there was the client was interviewed by the person who prepared the federal return. I would check the federal return for errors and prepare the state return. Then a third person would give it a final check. I remember doing a pretty good business in amended returns--a tax return that you file again to fix an error from the previous year, often missed deductions or credits. A good portion of those returns that had errors came from CPAs. The CPAs generally charged 2 or 3 times the price we did. Fixing returns that had previously been done by a CPA was a routine thing, it was running joke among us. The only thing that was better about the returns from the CPAs was they invariably came in a really nice folder that was embossed with their name on the front. Man those were some good folders.

It's only been recently that journalism required specialized education. Journalists were not considered part of the professional class until recently. Journalists used to be ink-stained wretches who below doctors and lawyers. Also a century ago most newspapers were openly aligned with one political interest or another and objectivity was not the standard.

It doesn't excuse the types of erros you are talking about, but as a profession, journalism is better than it was in the distant past, not so sure about the recent past.
johnmeyer wrote on 3/21/2006, 10:40 AM
My issue, as I stated, has nothing to do with political bias or any of the things that accompany that debate. It has to do with the basic incompetence that I see every day, and the inability to corectly include the basic Who, What, When, Where, Why, How that is supposed to be a part of every story.

I've had to deal directly with the press as part of my job, and "ink-stained wretches" is perhaps a little cruel, but not an entirely innaccurate description of the peopole I have met.
busterkeaton wrote on 3/21/2006, 10:59 AM
I mentioned the partsianship of old newspapers just to point out how much the nature of journalism has changed.


I do agree that getting the facts straight is a basic requirement that is too often not met.

In support of your argument I just looked at a story from AP White House correspondent talking about the next president implementing policy in 2008 when the next president will not have any governmental power until Jan 2009. It's a glaring obvious error in the first sentence.
johnmeyer wrote on 3/21/2006, 11:10 AM
I just looked at a story from AP White House correspondent talking about the next president implementing policy in 2008 when the next president will not have any governmental power until Jan 2009. It's a glaring obvious error in the first sentence.

Exactly!
Wes C. Attle wrote on 3/22/2006, 7:09 AM
"and almost no story of which I have had first-hand knowledge has been reported with any accuracy."

I must have had the same exact experience 15 to 20 times with newspapers, local TV news, and even national media. Every single news story which I had first-hand knowledge of was mis-communicated, mis-referenced, out of context, or packaged in a totally incorrect way so the original truth of what happened was totally lost. Usually lost in some artificial annoying hype!
JJKizak wrote on 3/22/2006, 8:04 AM
If you have access to "AP" or "UPI" or any of the large news services then read the same articles in the paper the next day you will be impressed with the amount of spin applied by the newspapers to sell newspapers.

JJK
johnmeyer wrote on 3/22/2006, 8:06 AM
The news services (AP, UPI, Reuters) are unfortunately full of lots of errors and, as Peter says, not being true to the story. As to "spin," that's a whole different topic. This thread is just addressing the inability to even report the basic facts accurately.

busterkeaton wrote on 3/22/2006, 10:55 AM
This sentence was rewritten later that same to remove any reference to the date and thus remove the error.

I have seen that before where the first copy that goes out on the web, gets edited later.