Lovejoy Journalism and News Literacy

In my line of work I hear the plaint often: Something-or-other (synonyms: the Internet, mobile devices, Twitter) is the death of writing. Or the death of letters. Or the death of news. Or the death of literacy. There sure is a lot of dying going on.

During our days at CNN, our show would get 40-50 pitches a day from public relations reps trying to peddle everything from experts on issues to the latest surveys to actual story ideas. Most were non-newsworthy or uninteresting and went straight in the trash. Only a few bubbled to the top and made it to the list of items we might use on the air. And we were actually grateful for those — compelling or interesting pitches that showed the p.r. rep did some homework. A good p.r. person knows how a news story is written, understands how video is edited, and has developed an instinct for news cycles and how newsrooms work.

Okay, the work of the reporter and the pitchman is similar. No doubt about it. But they serve two different masters. And this is important to remember. Journalists should never pander to corporations or special interests. But that is exactly what p.r. reps are paid to do. Journalists should report the good, bad and ugly. Public relations pros try to minimize, or spin, the bad and ugly and play up the good. The lines between the two professions should be clear, bold and well understood.

Unfortunately, they are not.

It’s totally in. All my friends are doing it. And I’m starting to wonder: should I join them?

I’m talking about nonprofit journalism.

Several of my reporter friends have transitioned from newspapers to nonprofits. One’s at the Texas Tribune , an online publication that focuses on public policy, politics and government. Another friend was lured by California Watch, an investigative team created this year by the Center for Investigative Reporting.

It's a solid alternative to the world of traditional media, much of which is struggling financially. “Even up until two years ago, serious reporters saw newspapers as their ultimate destination,” Jim Barnett, an expert on the nonprofit model, said in a radio interview. “Now that’s no longer the case. People recognize that there may be an answer here (in nonprofit journalism) – not thee answer, but an answer.”

The PBS NewsHour moves into a new era this week, dropping Jim Lehrer from the name-in-title spot and making a commitment to integrate broadcast and online content.

It’s an admirable adjustment in this era of constant struggle for longstanding news organizations. Lehrer promises that their mission won’t change and the show producers are committed to continuing “a deeper daily dive into the ‘why’ of a story, not just the ‘what happened’.”

In the show last Friday, the well-respected anchor shared guidelines for the show’s type of journalism, which include:

- Do nothing I cannot defend.
- Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.
- Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.
- Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything.

The great golfer Tiger Woods wants the news media to respect his privacy. Well, doesn't everybody? He's entitled to that wish, of course. And whatever is happening in his tightly shut home in a Florida gated community is a very personal matter that ultimately concerns only his family and possibly a few other intimately interested parties.

But Woods appears clueless about how the modern media operate as he, and his corporate handlers, have fumbled their response with misdirection, questionable outrage, and ambiguous apologies. For someone whose image has been burnished and presented with all the vanilla scriptedness of an annual shareholders meeting, the fallout from his middle-of-the-night pinball adventure with a Cadillac Escalade must be the stuff of sheer terror. Well, welcome to the 21st-century media landscape, Mr. Woods.