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.
Campaign Desk
03:39 PM - October 20, 2009
No Access? No Problem!
What’s so bad about not having access to the White House?
‘See you on the other side’ - Meet Jessica Lum, a terminally ill 25-year-old who chose to spend what little time she had practicing journalism
#Realtalk: This is the best moment to be in journalism - The old stuff isn’t coming back, but that’s okay
Streams of consciousness - Millennials expect a steady diet of quick-hit, social-media-mediated bits and bytes. What does that mean for journalism?
Sticking with the truth - How ‘balanced’ coverage helped sustain the bogus claim that childhood vaccines can cause autism
An ink-stained stretch - Can Aaron Kushner save the Orange County Register—and the newspaper industry?
Stop with the Jew-ranking already!
“There are some lists that have helped Jews in the past, including, most notably, Schindler’s, but…”
Please continue pronouncing ‘gif’ any way you please
We are all correct
The New York Times told me to take this down
“If you wouldn’t mind using another publication to advertise your infringement tool, we’d appreciate it”
In AP, Rosen investigations, government makes criminals of reporters
“[A]s flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration”
CJR's Guide to Online News Startups
Uptown Messenger – Hyperlocal news for a neighborhood in New Orleans
Who Owns What
The Business of Digital Journalism
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.
I dream that someday we'll have an administration with the courage to abandon the whole stupid game entirely. Everyone in America probably has some questions they would like to ask the President (or his mouthpiece). But only certain special people get to ask those questions on television and have them instantly reported across the mediasphere. Why? Do those special people ask especially interesting or significant questions? No. (And that's a shame, since asking good questions is the soul of journalism.)
Why can't the White House just invite all citizens (including reporters) to send in questions, and just pick out some to be answered each week in a "White House Mailbag" session?
#1 Posted by D. B., CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 01:55 PM
"frees him from the D.C. access game, and the peculiar passive-aggressive relationship it often fosters between journalists and people in power"
the d.c.access game is a variation on the sources or relationships game played by print news
news protocols seem to require "sources" to give the reporter creds (they call it objectivity but i won't) - columnists are allowed to have opinions - reporters are not funded to go around and collect facts and analyze them
tv needs visuals and talking heads, like fires, freeway traffic and reporters standing on the beach during hurricanes are visuals
but the administration has no power over visuals
fox does not need administration heads for a supply of visuals
their audience would just as soon not see administration talking heads
they can have their own talking heads talking about administration talking heads
ge
#2 Posted by jamzo, CJR on Thu 22 Oct 2009 at 04:44 PM
While the president is acting more like Chavez in Venezuela by restricting Fox, he is unintentionally giving Fox more good advertising than they could buy. The old saying about keeping you friends close and your enemies closer would be good advice for Obama. When this all plays out, Fox will have picked up more viewers at the expense of other networks because the public doesn't like these kinds of heavy handed policies. He is not nearly as smart a politician as Clinton and it is becoming obvious to a majority of voters.
#3 Posted by Roy Saltz, CJR on Thu 22 Oct 2009 at 11:08 PM
MediaMatters.org edited this sampling of Fox News day-parts. Is the White House right? You decide: http://bit.ly/jLA96
#4 Posted by Ed Madison, CJR on Sun 25 Oct 2009 at 11:49 AM
MediaMatters.org edited this sampling of Fox News day-parts. Is the White House right? You decide: http://bit.ly/jLA96
#5 Posted by Ed Madison, CJR on Sun 25 Oct 2009 at 11:51 AM