There will certainly be occasions in the course of my role at the NewsHour where I come in and do debriefs with Jim or whoever is hosting that night, and I’m happy to do that. I’m not so anxious to get back into an anchor chair anymore. Years ago, when I was a science correspondent at CNN, I had a producer take me aside and say, “You know, we’d really like you to anchor this weekend show here.” I didn’t want to do it. I was really enjoying what I was doing for a living and I was kind of pressured into that job. I’m not going to lie—I enjoyed it. I enjoyed the money, frankly, and I enjoyed the ability that that job gave me to do certain kinds of stories. However, I missed my roots. I always did. And I missed covering the stories where I felt like I had a passion and a knack for it. So, I think I’ve got it out of my system. I really feel strongly about staying close to the story—getting out there, meeting people, and interviewing them. The whole process of reporting is what I love. I love writing a story. I love production. I love the team endeavor of putting it together. And when you anchor, you get kind of elevated a step away from that. So I’m going to try to resist the temptation. Now, you know, if they start throwing a lot of money at me, you might want to call me back. I mean, I’ve got kids and all that. But really, if I can keep a roof over my head and my airplane flying, and still indulge my passion in this subject matter, I’m going to do it.
The Observatory
04:35 PM - October 4, 2010
Q&A: Miles O’Brien, Back in Action
Ex-CNN correspondent talks about the NewsHour’s new Science News Unit
‘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?
What to do if you find a baby bird
Expert advice
Inside Google’s secret lab
We might deplore the practice, but posting pictures of our food online is a way to bring everyone to the table
How the ‘World’s 50 Best’ list changed the way elite restaurants do business
“Every time the restaurant switched up its format, it got plenty of accompanying media coverage that let judges know they needed to return to see what was going on”
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.
Earlier this year, I sat in a seminar and listened to one of the few remaining science reporters at his national paper spell out the doomsday prophesy for science reporting in this country. The most popular science-related blog is a climate change denial site, he said.
I'm so glad to see NewsHour team up with Mr. O'Brien in an effort to turn the tide. I'm among those 20-something readers and watchers who want to have these complicated ideas explained in simple ways (call it the Robert Krulwich-brand of science story).
I want less of the, as that seasoned science reporter put it back in April, 'reworked press releases about dinosaurs that people will click on.' With the NewsHour's recent success online, I think there's great potential to find new ways to keep viewers engaged even past the eight-minute piece.
Best of luck.
#1 Posted by David Klatt, CJR on Tue 5 Oct 2010 at 12:07 PM
Enouraging but disturbing story.
The dumbing down of America, followed by it's media, started with the "boob tube's" coming into our homes with it's advertising, ratings and one syllable words and ideas. We have "progressed" to the likes of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, plus Dick Cheney, et al , amongst the round and round circus parade of American intellect and insight, who spew out the concept of "fair and balanced news."
Science, burdened with three four and - gasp! - five syllable words - and IDEAS and CONCEPTS rather than something to be viewed and then bought -suffers greatly in that few if any female scientists live colorful lives, have long legs and several husbands or divorce extensively. "Scientific" males of course, wear funny clothes, drive old cars, and actually listen to other people when they talk.
There are of course, a variety of ways to get the public's attention re: the very serious problems regarding the challenges our world and the universe presents us. Unfortunately, since few if any sponsors feel spending ad money on science programs attracts their typical TV target consumers: under thirty, caucasian, a beer drinker, well..., just fill in the rest!
The answer? Make it a law that each film and DVD will have a 1 to 3 minute "science update" , Madison Avenue slick!, that will inform a variety of ages and backgrounds as to our environmental dangers, future plans, ideas, funding, etc.
Hey, we sell cars, booze, bra's, sports and soap operas, why not our environment, what it is, problems why, the dangers, and progress on saving our very existence? With a billion year old universe we may have only 3 to 400 years remaining of sun okygen and TV?!
Well?
#2 Posted by John , CJR on Wed 27 Oct 2010 at 07:23 PM
INCREDIBLY ironic how the above commenters point to a climate change denial site and Glenn Beck is somehow being an indication of the dumbing-down of the media and society, when it turns out the growing bias of the mainstream media and its inability to tell the complete story anymore is exactly what causes intelligent people to seek out alternative sources of news. On the topic of climate change, I seriously doubt that either commenter could show information cited at the 'denier site' or at Beck's or any other Fox News program is flat out refuted. Contradicted, maybe, not refuted.
And then we have Miles O'Brien. Fair and balanced? I think not, as we need only look at his decidedly biased CNN presentation in 2005 called "Melting Point" ( http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/27/cp.01.html ), where anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan - who turns out NOT to be a Pulitzer winner despite widespread descriptions to the contrary, including the front of his own hardcover book "Boiling Point" - was allowed to make unsupported accusations against skeptic scientists, the basis of which were unquestioned by O'Brien. Gelbspan is infamous for pinning his entire accusation against skeptic scientists on a phrase taken from a 1991-era coal industry memo. Did O'Brien question why the memo itself is NEVER seen in its full context in any publication or web site that quotes the phrase, or ask about the claim on Gelbspan's book? No, arguably an example of journalistic malfeasance of epic proportions on his part and on the part of the mainstream media around the world..... including the PBS NewsHour, which never featured a skeptic scientist on its program once since 1996, to offer rebuttal of IPCC scientist guests. If the above commenters take issue with this, saying the NewsHour ignores corrupt skeptic scientists, I would challenge them to find any other investigative reporter who does NOT cite Gelbspan as a source of information, and who can independently corroborate the corruption allegation.
A failure to do so would clearly indicate a problem with the mainstream media and the NewsHour.
#3 Posted by RC, CJR on Wed 9 Feb 2011 at 02:20 PM