And for the first time in the history of Canadian journalism, a reporter questions how an Indian spends money.

Associate professor of journalism Kelly Toughill, direct from the fishbowl;

It is time to stop focusing on the decline of newspapers and start worrying about the loss of mass media in general.
The newspaper crisis is a symptom of a broader problem.
We are in danger of losing institutions that cut across income, race, culture, gender and age to provide a shared intellectual space in society. We are in danger of losing one of the few activities that forces us, even briefly, to consider people, ideas and interests different than our own.
[…]
The common narrative goes like this: The Internet is killing newspapers because it is faster, cheaper and easier for readers to use. The casualties are jobs and public interest journalism essential to democracy.
Wrong. The Internet is part of the problem, but not because it is faster and easier. The Internet hurts old media because it can deliver targeted advertising to niche markets without wasting time and money delivering ads to those who aren’t interested.

Whereupon, the commoners narrate right back at her in the comments…

I repeat: This isn’t an extinction. It’s suicide.
Diane Sawyer looks to become the next Dan Rather;

In an interview with Sen. John McCain on Monday, anchor Diane Sawyer described Limbaugh’s “I hope he fails” comment as “another big issue in the news.”
She then tossed to a sound bite comprising two separate comments made five days apart, which ABC joined together. The edited comment made it sound like Limbaugh wants Obama to fail because he’s black.
Here’s the ABC version of Limbaugh’s comment:
Limbaugh: “I don’t need 400 words. I need four. I hope he fails.”
[Edit]
“We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, because his father was black, because this is the first black president, we’ve got to accept this.”
“Good Morning America” took the first sentence from Limbaugh’s Jan. 16 radio program. The second sentence comes from Limbaugh’s January 21 appearance on Sean Hannity’s TV show.

Via Canadian Sentinel
Rathergate

America’s News Media: Asking the tough questions. Getting the tough autographs.

*

Drudge – OBAMA BOOM AT FOXNEWS… RATINGS SOAR… NIGHT OF 1/28/09… VIEWERS…

FOXNEWS OREILLY 3,891,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,034,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,306,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,299,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,155,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,581,000
CNN COOPER 1,559,000
CNN KING 1,420,000
CNN BLITZER 1,490,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,435,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,398,000

I should start a pool for the day that Hannity overtakes The Factor…

“… and they are bad on a good day. “

“And get this— the Times is paying old Carlos an astounding 14% interest rate! What, was Tony Soprano not available?”

Had they interrupted the babbling about His Magnificence long enough to take a breath, the media might have noticed that He Who Need Not Explain actually stopped taking their questions* last September;

Veteran CBS newsman Bill Plante was one of the most vocal critics, questioning the White House’s handling of Wednesday night’s second swearing in – which was covered by just a four-reporter print pool that didn’t include a news photographer or TV correspondent.
He also asked new press secretary Robert Gibbs why ABC, which paid millions to host the DC Neighborhood Ball, was granted the only inauguration day interview with President Obama – a move he equated to “pay to play.”

Politico;

Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.
“Ahh, see,” he said, “I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can’t end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I’m going to get grilled every time I come down here.”

Related – Must be Truth To Power Day

Four, three, two… Newsbusters;

ASU journalism professor Stephen Doig took it to the satellite image to get an accurate count of the crowd. His tally, after even accounting for those still in route to the event: 800,000. Now let’s look at how the working Obamalists portrayed that to the public.

Moneyrunner catches the Washington Post quoting a statistic taken from a source that used the Washington Post as the source.

“They are pursuing a more elite audience, in print and on the Web, abandoning the old Henry Luce notion of catering to the masses.”
The road to survival, no question.

Debra J. Saunders;

From the day President Bush took office, the long knives were out for him – in ways they will not (and should not) be out for President-elect Barack Obama. The chattering class saw Dubya as a walking style crime in a cowboy suit. They hit Bush for everything – for the way he mangled syntax, for the books he read, because he worked out too much.
Note now that the buff Obama is taking office, stories gushing about Obama’s daily workouts flood the channels. Oh, yes, and the same people who belittled Bush for sending troops to war even though he only served in the National Guard somehow do not seem to notice Obama’s utter lack of military experience.

More on the acknowledgment that “To trash Bush was to belong”. (h/t)
Related – “The embattled New York Times Co. … is talking to Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim about making a sizeable cash investment .”

Minnesota’s largest newspaper will try to use bankruptcy to restructure its debt and lower its labor costs.
Chris Harte, the paper’s publisher, said the filing would have no impact on home delivery, advertising, newsgathering or any other aspects of the paper’s operations.

No, it never does.

And there’s something to be said for that.

Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press.

Take a sheet of paper and make a big circle in the middle. In the center of that circle draw a smaller one to create a doughnut shape. Label the doughnut hole “sphere of consensus.” Call the middle region “sphere of legitimate debate,” and the outer region “sphere of deviance.”
[…]
In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized— meaning they were connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other. But today one of the biggest factors changing our world is the falling cost for like-minded people to locate each other, share information, trade impressions and realize their number. Among the first things they may do is establish that the “sphere of legitimate debate” as defined by journalists doesn’t match up with their own definition.
In the past there was nowhere for this kind of sentiment to go. Now it collects, solidifies and expresses itself online. Bloggers tap into it to gain a following and serve demand. Journalists call this the “echo chamber,” which is their way of downgrading it as a reliable source. But what’s really happening is that the authority of the press to assume consensus, define deviance and set the terms for legitimate debate is weaker when people can connect horizontally around and about the news.

h/t
A commentor notes – “Journalists “draw a circle” and label it a sphere. How fitting somehow.”
Flashback to the 2007 SDA reader occupation survey (of the first 630+ respondants)

engineers: 61
computer programmers/consultants/systems analysts: 47
management: 46
military: 36
educators: 31
scientists: 28
small business: 28
technicians/technologists: 27
accountants/bookkeepers/economists/taxation/insurance: 24
construction/electricians/plumbers/carpenters/contractors: 23
financiers/brokers/bankers: 21
farmer/rancher/cowboy/agriculture/veterinary: 19
stay-at-home parents: 18
consultants: 18
sales: 16
pilots/air traffic control: 15
lawyers/legal assistants/advocates: 14
doctors/nurses/healthcare: 14
pastors/priests/missionaries/social workers/psychologists/counselors: 13
civil servants: 12
artists/musicians/photographers: 12
manufacturing/machinists: 10
writers/journalists/reporters: 10
police/corrections/security/investigation: 8
students: 8
truckers/railroad workers: 8
statisticians/actuaries/data analysts/librarians: 8
architects/draftsmen/urban planners: 8
radio/television/telecom: 7
mechanics/heavy equipment operators: 6
oil workers: 6
real estate: 4
forestry: 3
purchasing/logistics/warehousing: 3
secretary/administrative assistant:3
quality assurance: 2
map maker/surveyor: 2
human resources: 2
other: 12

The problems besetting journalism today aren’t just the consequence of the liberal left’s lopsided representation within their ranks – it’s that there seems to be a fundamental inability to understand that on any given topic, someone is likely to get something wrong.
The internet didn’t just connect politically like-minded people whose views are under-served. It connected the highly trained and knowledgeable across geographic regions and fields of expertise, enabling them to compare notes and realize “it’s not just us”. That by and large, journalism is perhaps the only profession where the utterly unqualified are given the privilege of writing to a mass audience on topics that they really not ought to.
At one time, the error in basic chemistry or math might only be spotted by a few trained individuals in the field. A messed up report on the Canadian Wheat Board would raise the ire of ag producers but not much more. Misidentifying a weapons system would pass unnoticed by all but the military.
Today the chemists, ag producers and military talk to each other, and the conclusion they’re coming to is that an uncomfortably large percentage of journalists are not merely tainted by political assumptions – they’re lazy, stupid, or both.
The phenomenon is so widespread that a phrase has been coined to mock it – “Google is your friend.”
They’re asking themselves, “Why should we buy your papers? Why should I trust your network”? If you can’t get these basic facts right, if you can’t bother to balance your staff politically, of what possible value is your product to me? To anyone?
The crumbling authority of media is a problem that cannot be solved within the current top-down framework, because the framework itself is the problem. It’s the wrong model for the times.
The environment has been altered forever, and what the industry is faced with isn’t reorganization – it’s evolution. Change or die. Or change, and die anyway.
I have my money on both.
Update. I no sooner finished writing this when reader Michael S. sent along this case in point, courtesy the Associated Press.

Help put Charles Adler over the top!
There’s a “senate seat” to be had in this, if you catch my drift.

Off to a good start.

*

Bob Owens;

The segment with Gilbert shows him and another doctor badly faking chest compressions and other life-saving measures on a live boy faking death in what can only be described as political theater. The video claims to be filmed by the brother of a Palestinian teen that claims the boy was one of two purposefully killed by a missile fired at them by an Israeli drone as they played.
[…] CNN editors who swallowed the story of the poorly-acted video unquestioningly—no doubt because it fit the anti-Israeli narrative familiar to CNN viewers and critics—have now pulled the video without explanation, correction, or retraction.
It has also been determined that the videographer who filmed his brother’s “death” is the general manager of a company that hosts web sites for Hamas.

Fake but accurate! While the video is gone, the story remains up at CNN.
The video: