Death and journalism have always maintained a delicate and sometimes weird relationship.  During my days as a news writer for the old United Press International, my first lesson on the subject involved events with death tolls.  Any time the death toll is uncertain, the rule was to always go with the lowest ascertainable figure available.  The logic for low-balling death counts was clear as crystal; in news copy, it’s easier to kill people than it is to bring them back from the dead.

Julianna and Theresa Rolle

I was also taught the standard rules that applied to reporting on deaths.  There’s weren’t a lot of them but they managed to cover most circumstances:

• Was the person a minor?  (Child deaths are always more sensitive)
• Was the person a public official? (The public’s right to know is paramount)
• Was the death a public event? (Was it caused by a natural disaster? A fire? A crime? People have a natural and legitimate interest)
• Did the person occupy a degree of public awareness? (Movie stars and other non-elected but notable persons fit into this category)
• Did the circumstances of the death include a societal or public safety issue? (Death caused by bad roads, bad policy or bad ideas are absolutely fair game)
• Was it a freak of nature? (People are just sort of attracted to, well, freak stories)
• Is it a slow news day? (Like it or not, it’s a fact of life when covering death)
• What is the geographic depth of interest? (A routine death in a smaller town is far more newsworthy than a routine death in a major city)

Regrettably, even these somewhat loosy-goosey protocols of decorum and judgment have been lost in what passes for 21st-century reporting, the most recent example being this dreadful breach of professionalism from Gawker. (more…)

Washington Post writer David Weigel has resigned his job reporting on the conservative movement and the Republican Party and the newspaper is well rid of him. Having only been hired in the spring of 2010, it took little time for this ill-trained scribe to demonstrate his lack of suitability for engaging in journalism at the major league level.

Weigel was found to have penned a substantial number of emails on a list serve that included disparaging comments about many of the people he covered during the course of his job. It was actually sort of cute reading his apology in which he sought to insulate himself, however thinly, by noting in the opening sentence that it was an off-the-record list serve from which his offending missives were pulled. How precious. No doubt he would give similar quarter to any source claiming off-the-record status.

In many circles, this demonstration of poor judgment alone would have been sufficient to dismiss a reporter but the Post is not well rid of him because of his politics or his opinions. It is because, though the public airing of his personal comments and attitudes, he has made himself a poster child for how to lose a libel suit. (more…)

A New Jersey court decision has determined that a writer in Washington State named Shellee Hale is not protected by New Jersey’s shield law protecting journalists from being forced to reveal their sources because… wait for it… the court says she’s not a journalist but merely a blogger.

Some folks are saying the ruling is the death of online journalism and an effort to cement journalistic power with the sick and dying mainstream media. As a former newshound and right-of-center web reporter/editor, I’m not so sure I would ring the alarm bells just yet.

Let’s look at a few salient things involving the Hale case. Based on the available information, Hale found herself in hot water with a New Jersey software company for an entry she wrote in the comment section of a blog regarding the company, which subsequently sued her for defamation. During the course of the trial, the company also wanted to know the source of the information in Hale’s comment, which she refused to disclose.

Set aside for a moment the refusal, the blogging, her past writing for other media outlets and so forth and take a look at something that seems largely overlooked in this. According to the coverage of this event that I’ve been able to find, Hale wasn’t reporting on anything at the time of her ill-fated musings. She was posting a comment about a subject on a blog. I couldn’t even find anything indicating this was part of a research effort for a news story. It looks like she just put up something in a comment section and that was that. (more…)

President Obama this week announced that his administration would ease-up on the long moratorium on offshore drilling for oil and natural gas.  Congress may not have made up its collective mind on the issue but some in the American media have made their positions clear.  Observe if you will this headline from the April 1 edition of the Miami Herald:

Obama offshore drilling plan spares South Florida

Here’s a parallel line from a story on the website of KEYT-TV in Santa Barbara, California:

It looks as if California’s coastline was spared, as President Obama announced plans for renewed efforts of offshore oil exploration.

Without getting into the relative merits of the president’s proposal, my question is, from what exactly are these two states being spared?  It’s not as if ExxonMobil is planning to plop oil derricks along the strip in South Beach or adjacent to the millionaire mansions of Santa Barbara.  But what about the pristine scenery in these areas?

The drilling would not be permitted any closer than 125 miles from any shoreline, which is well into international waters. In fact, nobody would ever see the drilling platforms.  A person of average height can only see about three miles into the horizon and even folks in the tallest luxury hotels have a vista that extends maybe 25 or 30 miles tops.  No, wrecking the view isn’t something that folks are being spared from. (more…)

Headline writing has always been an art.  From my earliest days as print newsman, finding the right words to tell a story and fit the allotted space was a routine challenge that often sparked some of the liveliest debates in the newsroom.  Sometimes hilarious, often passionate, headline writing has been and remains a distinct and important craft.

So how does one adequately explain this March 16 item from the CNN website politics page?

Health care foes have 200 no votes in House

Or this March 4 item from the Miami Herald website?

Health care opponents target Utah judgeship in latest salvo

Let’s see a show of hands:  How many health care foes do we have out there today?

Okay, let’s rephrase the question.  All you “health-care opponents” say “aye.” (more…)

The stage is being set for another round of media examinations of “military culture” thanks to the ever weirder and more sordid saga of former Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY).   For the uninitiated or those awakening from a deep coma, Massa is the recently resigned congressman who is coming under microscopic media scrutiny for alleged acts of inappropriate behavior, some of it allegedly constituting sexual harassment. In recent days, the media have been drilling down into his 24-year career as a naval officer and in the process, some pretty disturbing tales have been percolating to the surface.

During Lawrence O’Donnell’s March 10 guest hosting gig on MSNBC’s Countdown show, he wondered aloud, “Who has done more damage to the image of the Navy, Congressman Massa or the Village People?” a reference to the disco group and its 1979 hit In the Navy.

The blog at The Economist goes even farther, stating that Massa’s tales of high jinks on the high seas  is entirely plausible:

Eric Massa, who is resigning from Congress over the possibility of a male staffer raising allegations of sexual harassment, has been explaining a series of jokes and misunderstandings over the years involving gay sex. Mr. Massa, who served in the Navy, says he’s a “salty old sailor.” I find this explanation entirely convincing. (more…)