behind the news

A Veteran Critic, on the Press and on Critics

Mark Jurkowitz on the difference between writing for newspapers, alt-weeklies and blogs, and his new role at the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
May 5, 2006

Boston Phoenix media critic Mark Jurkowitz announced this week that he will be leaving the paper in July to become the associate director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, headquartered in Washington, DC. Before returning to the Phoenix, and his old column, in 2005, Jurkowitz spent 10 years at the Boston Globe, as ombudsmen and media writer.

Paul McLeary: How did this new job at the Project for Excellence in Journalism come about — did they approach you initally?

Mark Jurkowitz: Yeah, they did. I had come back to the Phoenix about a year ago, after 10 years at the Globe, and was very happy here. But I’ve known Tom [Tom Rosenstiel, director of the PEJ], for a long time–obviously when you’re in my line of work, the Project is an invaluable source, and they actually approached me.

PM: What kind of projects will you be working on there?

MJ: Primarily they’re known for two things: One is their ability to do empirically solid content analysis and two, their ability to be able to analyze it in neutral, non-ideological ways. So, I’m going to be involved in all of their research projects and working closely with Tom at this point.

PM: Are you still going to keep writing while you’re there?

Sign up for CJR's daily email

MJ: Well, there’s writing involved in the job, but I won’t be writing regularly for media outlets. That isn’t to say that at some point you won’t see my byline, but this will take all of my energy, so I won’t continue to write a media column anywhere or anything like that.

PM: Was it a hard decision to make, giving up the writing aspect of your job?

MJ: I’ve been a reporter for 25 years, and I could see myself being a reporter for a little longer. But when you’re in my line of work, you really start to think about where you can ultimately go, and what’s the next logical step. There are a handful of places in this country that take seriously the analysis of how the media is doing, and what it is doing, and I’d always thought to myself, “Boy, I’d like to end up at one of those places.” So when a job like this opens up at a point in my career–I’m a middle aged journalist–it just seemed to me to be the next logical step to take after what I’ve done all these years.

PM: Are there any subjects in particular you want to work on once you get to the PEJ?

MJ: I haven’t come with any specific projects in mind, but I’m very familiar with their work, and what they do, [much] of which even as a media critic, you can’t do. When they do these projects they really get a hard look at what’s actually being produced, what is the actual media product, and what it looks like. And, you know, as a journalist, that’s the job you try and do. But the truth is, you can’t follow everything, and most of the time you end up quoting other pundits and commentators. I’m attracted by the idea of actually being able to figure it out myself without relying on other people.

PM: And without the weekly deadlines that might prevent you from delving into something as much as you’d like.

MJ: Right. I’m attracted to, at this point, that kind of level of examination of what’s actually happening in our business.

PM: What prompted your move back to the Phoenix in 2005, after ten years at the Boston Globe? Were you given more freedom at the Phoenix?

MJ: Absolutely. I boil it down to two short words: Voice and space. I had a nice run at the Globe. I was grateful to the people there, but at that point I felt that I didn’t have the freedom I needed to really be a media critic. To me, when you’re doing a job like that, the word “critic” is vital. It’s a little like sports writing. Part of the job is to have some voice, to have attitude, to lead readers to the place you want to take them. To me, media criticism is really a child of the alternative press. It’s now much more widespread than it used to be, but that’s really where it grew up and flourished for a lot of reasons. For many years the mainstream media was far too self-conscious to do that job, and [the alternative press is] still psychologically and temperamentally a better place to do it. The other pragmatic element is, it’s hard to cover the media in a market when you’re standing on the deck of the huge battleship. When you’re at the Globe, writing about the media constellation in the city of Boston, it’s not the most unfettered view of things you can have.

For those reasons I sort of felt like I would just have more fun and more freedom at the Phoenix, and the idea of getting a blog really was attractive to me. There hadn’t been any opportunity to write online at the Globe at that point, and I realized that this is an important part of what’s going on in the media, and to be part of it…was important to me. [Blogging] is probably the first genuinely new skill I have learned in this business in 15 years. It’s like, “OK, sure, I’ve reported before, I’ve written before,” but here was something that was truly an opportunity to learn how to do something different and new.

PM: Do you think that blogging has changed the face of media criticism?

MJ: The blogosphere in some ways is kind of the heir apparent to where the alternative press was years ago–it sees itself as the alternative to the quote-unquote “MSM.” It’s got a little bit of a chip on its shoulder about how the MSM behaves. But on the other hand, the blogosphere at this point is so big and so massive and so many things that its hard to describe it in one word. I think it’s had a real impact on the mainstream media. After a long time of ignoring it, the mainstream media might be obsessed– frankly, a little too obsessed with it at this point–but there are obviously notable cases where blogs have had a serious impact, from Dan Rather to Eason Jordan.

As for me, I’ve found blogging markedly different than what I write in the paper every Thursday. It’s gotta be faster, it’s gotta have even more voice and attitude, there’s clearly less reporting — although you don’t want to fall into the trap of not being accurate–and there’s an interactivity to it that you have to get used to. Frankly, it’s only been a few years since journalists bothered putting their email address at the bottom of their stories so people could actually contact them. Now when you write something online, 15 minutes later there are three people calling you a jerk.

I’ve tried to do three things with my blog. One, use it just to do commentary. Two is just to link to other things that I think are interesting or well done. The third is that I’ve used it to be a bit of a daily journalist. In the old days, if the Boston Herald got sold on a Friday, tough luck, I’d have to write about it next Thursday. So, I don’t have one pat blogging style, I certainly appreciate that it allows me to communicate instantaneously.

Overall, the idea that you may have a larger chorus of voices who are looking at the media, whether or not their criticism is agenda-based, never hurts. It never hurts to keep the mainstream media on their toes.

Paul McLeary is a former CJR staff writer. Since 2008, he has covered the Pentagon for Foreign Policy, Defense News, Breaking Defense, and other outlets. He is currently a defense reporter for Politico.