Now, I don’t actually expect Fox—even the “hard news” programs, as distinct from the Beck/Hannity crowd—to turn its excommunication to journalistic advantage. In a move that will surprise none of its critics, the network seems to have decided—probably correctly—that the biggest ratings gains are to be found by calling as much attention to this feud as possible. And even without White House access, there are plenty of familiar faces and conventional-wisdom suppliers that the network can call upon: see the roster of CEOs, senators and other establishment-types that have warmed the chair in Wallace’s studio of the past month. Still, here’s hoping that one day, someone among the talking heads and their bookers will look beyond the denizens of the halls of power (and, for that matter, the perpetual punditocracy) who now rotate through the Sunday shows.
03:39 PM - October 20, 2009
No Access? No Problem!
What’s so bad about not having access to the White House?
Who cares if it’s true? - Modern-day newsrooms reconsider their values
What Is Russia Today? - The Kremlin’s propaganda outlet has an identity crisis
And from the left…Fox News - There’s more to Fox News’ strategy of hiring liberals than creating a public boxing match
Why Skype isn’t safe for journalists - Here are some alternatives for secure voice calls to use instead
Placing a bet on USA Today - Gannett has long felt the television model could translate into print. Now it’s using its flagship paper to double down on that idea.
Email blasts from CJR writers and editors
Upworthy gets quality, exclusive journalism about income inequality; ProPublica gets a wider audience
We’re not in the Cold War anymore
What you think you know about online advertising is wrong
“Is it going to be hard in two years when you are no longer President and people stop letting you win at basketball?”
Who Owns What
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.