Thursday, February 26, 2009

Journalists everywhere are shaking in their boots.

Rocky Mountain News, a well respected and well established paper in Denver, Colorado, announced today that they are closing down and releasing their final edition tomorrow. And here in San Francisco, the Chronicle, a nationally recognized news source, is glimpsing a similar fate as they frantically try to cut costs.

These newspapers, as well as other media outlets, are above all businesses and need to be making a profit (appease shareholders) to remain viable. But in this economy that is getting harder for everyone to do. It is possible that part of the reason newspapers in particular are failing is that print is no longer a sought after medium with competition from TV and internet, but these financial woes can be seen, if not to the same degree, in those latter realms as well. Young Broadcasting owner of several TV stations declared bankruptcy a couple of weeks ago, and major media company stocks have been heading downhill this past week.

So, to avoid closure and increase profits, media companies area cutting costs through lay offs and salary cuts. And it appears to me that this cost cutting is focused on the smallest profit producing departments, mainly, the news. From an insiders point of view of broadcast journalism (I will not name the company since my opinions are not theirs and I don't want to compromise my position...as an unpaid intern) I have heard about efforts to change the structure of the news to cut cost which involves having individual journalists doing more jobs and dramatically increasing output. While this plan is ultimately about saving as many jobs as possible while still pleasing the shareholders, one major thing that will most likely suffer is the quality and depth of the news, both because journalists are forced to plow quickly through stories to prove productivity, and because they will now be taking on roles they are not experienced with. Right now the news room is divided into specialized areas: there are the writers, the editors, the reporters, etc. but as the journalist are to take on all roles at once the high production value that comes with specialized skill will suffer.

This jack of all trades journalist, I've been told, is the future of broadcasting journalism. And, indeed, there are many journalist, especially in the independent realm, who have been working this way for years. But I cannot help but think a major shift in this direction will profoundly affect the field of journalism. For one, will it still be a viable career option for as many people? Or perhaps this change will give alternative and independent journalists a chance to gain more recognition. Either way we might end up with a bunch of unemployed highly qualified journalists. The real concern, though, is will the public still have access to information in the same way?

No matter the criticism of the mainstream media, they are still an important part of the day to day running and understanding of this country. And there are many journalists in this mainstream who hold on to their idealistic motives, but are now faced with a move it or lose it ultimatum. This definitely includes the journalists I am currently working with for whom I have a great deal of respect. I am also big fan of independent media, but unfortunately, I also believe that a huge portion of our country does not view them with credibility. It is those who strive to do their best with in this corporate news system that perhaps best reach those in middle America where Free Speech Radio News is associated with the term "Pinkos." I personally feel that to lose them would be a great loss to this country. Your thoughts are more than welcome.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

In baseball news...

It looks like the Oakland Athletics are staying in Oakland! Fremont is out, at least for the time being. I'm looking forward to catching a few games this season.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

There goes any hopes I had of becoming a doctor.

This past week the SF Chronicle ran the article, "No help for dyslexics who want to be doctors." The CA state Supreme Court decided that American Association of Medical Colleges does not need to provide accommodations, such as extended time, for learning disabled test takers. This is rather unfortunate because it will make it harder for some who would probably make a great doctor to get into medical school, even though they have the knowledge and intelligence necessary. I happen to know from familial experience that dyslexia is not a determining factor in what kind of doctor a person will make, and should not be apart of determining medical school entrance. This certainly does seem like a set back for disabled rights. Any thoughts?

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

BTW...

I know I've lost steam on the blog writing recently, but there are plans to add more coal to the fire soon. But in the time being I would just like to mention I just watched yesterday's Colbert Report and TV on the Radio was on and it was awesome. Actual writing coming soon.

Monday, February 02, 2009

Ground Hog Day

This morning Punxsutawney Phil stuck his head out of his hole and saw his shadow predicting another six weeks of winter. But perhaps what he should have been looking for is a foreclosure sign outside his humble abode. Maybe then he could predict how much longer this economic 'winter' is going to last. It certainly doesn't seem like it's going to be over anytime soon. All the promises of a 'bailout' plan for the rest of us, seem so far to be just that...promises. To many people on the hill and on wall street,it seems, are perfectly happy with the status quo. Exxon reported its largest profits in years and bank CEOs are taking home bundles in bonuses. The republicans are dragging there feet on plans suggested by President Obama, and as long as he keeps trying to appease them, I foresee less 'stimulus' coming to us and more going to those who need it the least. John Stewart mentioned a great plan during his interview with Gwen Ifill on Jan. 27th, “Give us the money, but only for consumer debt and mortgages. We'll pay it back to them, make it clean, hit the reset button. We know where it went to. It's a trickle up theory of economics. I don't know why they keep talking about giving it to banks. Give it to us specifically for our consumer debt...and then they'll have money, we'll have no debt and the world will be made of unicorns and rainbows.” Wouldn't that be nice?

Other reading:
“Herbert Hoover Lives,” Frank Rich, New York Times
“How to rescue the bank bailout,” Joseph E. Stiglitz, CNN