McGill’s students have been posting an impressive series of local journalism stories and posting them at Locally Grown. Their work is worth watching, hearing and reading.

Here is a description of McGill’s class:

272. Truth vs. Power: A Journey in Journalism

Journalism is in turmoil today. Bold experimentation is needed to meet such dramatic new challenges to journalism as the Internet, the decline of newspapers, multilingual readerships, and global crises requiring activism more than “objectivity.” The class will move between a theoretical focus — exploring journalism’s basic theories and often-contradictory methods, purposes and aims –and a practical focus inviting students to strive towards their highest journalistic ideals. Students will be challenged to blend journalism’s indispensable norms of factual accuracy, fairness and quality writing with new technologies such as blogging, podcasting, videocasting, social networking and RSS feeds. 6 credits, AL.
Fall — D. McGill

Here is one section which reinforces that idea:

editors remain convinced the key to their survival is a good business model and strong journalism. As one editor interviewed for this named three basic ingredients needed “not just to survive, but thrive:” excellent journalism, strong investment to stay on the cutting edge of technology, and aggressive marketing of the product.

But alas as I read through the report, I see the lip service being paid to high quality journalism and the reality is something else. The report is based on surveys and discussions with newspaper editors. Not a good choice to find the truth about changing newspapers.

Newspaper editors, for the most part, who are still editing newspapers, are there because they have learned to adapt to ever worsening situations. I think, if their individual publisher cut off each editor’s nose and ears, the editor would come out of the publisher’s office and say, “Wow that hurt, but now I can smell and hear only those things that are essential — and for that I am a better person.”

Here is a quote, for example, from the report:

“I believe the journalism itself is discernibly better than it was a year ago,” said the editor of a large metropolitan daily, whose paper last year lost 70 newsroom employees. “There’s an improvement in enterprise, in investigations and in the coverage of several core beats.”

That editor is not alone, the report finds:

…despite the enormous cutbacks and profound worries—editors still sense that their product is improving, not worsening. Fully 56% think their news product is better than it was three years earlier.

Maybe, but here is a key paragraph in the report:

The bottom line culturally is this: In today’s newspapers, stories tend to be gathered faster and under greater pressure by a smaller, less experienced staff of reporters, then are passed more quickly through fewer, less experienced, editing hands on their way to publication.

The bigger newspapers seem to be being hit the hardest:

the study suggests two very different experiences, with smaller newspapers apparently better anchored into their communities and with more deeply involved readerships, enjoying greater stability.

Nonetheless, topics getting less coverage in newspapers in general include international affairs, national, regional and state government and politics, business, features and lifestyle, film and arts, and science.

Here is the result:

…this shrinkage of specialized beats reduces the marketplace of ideas and interpretations as more newspapers decide to cut plum (and thus, expensive) jobs because they can “buy the content elsewhere.” Such a process concentrates the power and the responsibility that goes with reporting these areas into the hands of those organizations that still provide such coverage. One executive editor remarked how, after being forced to lay off the paper’s art critic, the choice of a further staff cut then focused on either the resident film or music critic.

I hated to make that cut,” the editor said. “I read all these things about how cutting film critics is a good choice because you can get film criticism from other places, but those are the same arguments you hear about foreign coverage, national coverage or state government coverage. Eventually, you wake up one day and find there is no somewhere else because everyone has done the same thing you’ve done. It’s very troubling.”

Very troubling indeed, when you consider that the Murdoch and Thomson families now control a large percentage of the business news with the respective acquisitions of Dow Jones and Reuters. These media families are not exactly champions of journalism values or ethics.

Here is what else is happening to quality:

Reporters who once concentrated on one beat or specialty now frequently have two or three…In interviews, editors of newspapers that had undergone significant newsroom cuts repeatedly found themselves hard-pressed to name beats that had been abandoned completely. But they agreed the coverage had become thinner and, because of that, its quality had diminished.

One area that is flourishing is local news:

At a time of shrinking newshole, nearly two-thirds (62%) of those responding to the survey said they had increased the amount of space devoted to community and neighborhood news. Among smaller papers, this number was even higher at 67%.

Investigative and enterprise reporting also gets high marks:

91% of all newsroom executives said they considered investigative or enterprise reporting either “very essential” or “somewhat essential” to the quality of their news product.

However, here is the caveat from the editors:

To be sure, they admitted that financial pressures today force them to be more selective in their choice of such labor-intensive editorial projects. They also noted investigative stories tend to run shorter than they did a few years ago…

The newspapers and their online editions seem to be leaning towards immediacy, local and short. That may be great for many readers, but not for me. I want that short stuff, but I want context, nuance, depth. That I am afraid will disappear, unless, we all find a way to make it happen, probably outside the mainstream newspapers.

There will be exceptions like the New York Times, if it can survive. According to a recent Columbia Journalism Review article, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher and chairman of the NewYork Times:

still believes in the Times’s basic model: quality journalism + quality readers = quality advertising. “It has been our formula for success for decades. We believe it will remain so in this digital era,” he told shareholders in April.

The article adds:

In part because of its commitment to quality journalism, for which so many are rightfully grateful, the Times Company’s profit margins have always been narrower than most of the industry, and consequently it has less of a margin to absorb declines. Yet it is on that foundation of quality that Sulzberger places his faith. “It is our belief that the reason why the Times has survived when so many of its competitors have faded, is because it maintained a strong value system that has always been an essential part of our tradition.”

But let’s get back to the survey of editors. I had great hopes for Mobile Journalists, I saw them hanging out in neighborhoods, getting close to all constituencies and providing depth and context in ways newsroom bound reporters cannot, but apparently that is not the trend. This is:

Anecdotal evidence suggests “Mo Jo’s” are usually deployed to cover geographical rather than themed beats and tend to act as carpet sweepers, reporting and filing a stream of short, quick stories for the paper’s website on minor or routine developments during the course of the day.

So kid, what’s you job? I am a Mo Jo, a carpet sweeper at your local daily. It’s one of several symbols that journalism that helps us truly understand the world in which we live is waning, even though there is lot of talk from editors that they are doing better journalism than ever. It has to be our mission to help fix it. I am trying with my Representative Journalism idea, and you, what are you doing?

Look at this interview as a benefit of reading the PJNet.org. Why? Because the odds of having a smart proposal approved are very good. Read on.

Leonard Witt: Tell me a little about the Knight Community Information Challenge, why is Knight involved and for what end?

Mike Maidenberg: Knight Foundation is deeply interested in how information flows in physical communities. We know the power of the web in specialized fields. What we are trying to understand and experiment with is how the web can be used to tie local communities together, with the newspaper a model from the past.

Witt: How did newspapers do that in the past?
Mike Maidenberg: A newspaper was generally a broad-reaching media vehicle. It touched the entire geography of a region. It was wide, but often not deep. When I was a publisher, it was accurate to say the reach of the newspaper matched the community’s boundaries economically, culturally and in many other ways. Local television broadcasts also had broad distribution. I should emphasize that we see both newspapers and television still very much in the game, but their audiences are skewing older.

Witt: Sure, but the whole idea of public journalism grew because newspapers — and other mass media — were not very well connected with their communities. There were lots of people left out of the conversation, which mostly was between reporters and experts. Who wants to go back to that?
Maidenberg: There were lots of faults with the way newspapers and other mass media operated, including as you note people being left out of the conversation. But still the news columns made it possible for everyone in a community to get a sense of what is going on, what the problems and challenges are. A newspaper could report on educational attainment gaps, job losses, use of public monies for arenas, etc. If there is no general platform on which a conversation in the community can be held, that is a matter of concern.

We don’t see an online newspaper emerging that will replicate the print product. We do see lots of interesting ideas emerging. We don’t know the answers. We do want to encourage experimentation. One way is through the community foundation initiative.

Witt: You say, “One way is through the community foundation initiative.” There are now so many Knight challenges — news and information initiatives — it is hard to keep them straight. What’s that about, why so many? Why not just seek folks out with good idea and give them the money?
Maidenberg: Yes, there are several challenges, but each has a strategic focus. A few minutes on the web site will help. We are in fact seeking folks out, but we are doing it by asking for proposals and ideas from all parts of society.

Witt: Can you give us a hint of the kind of ideas that might hit the jackpot with this initiative?
Maidenberg: Does the idea show that a community foundation is experimenting with the information needs of its community? Does the community foundation accept information as a core community need? Does the proposal by the community foundation show that the community foundation is exercising community leadership?

These are the principles we will be looking at. The specifics will certainly vary community by community. Blogging, digital connectivity, digital mapping—these ideas and more have been suggested. But it will depend on how they fit within every community and community foundation.

In the community foundation initiative, requests for grant support will come from community foundations, who in turn will deal with new ideas, organizations, individuals, coalitions, etc.

Witt: Okay, let’s try this a little differently. Is there a community foundation that you or Knight now thinks is doing an exemplary job of fostering or facilitating the exchange of information across its community? Do you have some kind of ideal in mind?/em>
Maidenberg: We see many community foundations active in the area, but none that have reached far enough to be an ideal. That’s what we are trying to bring forth. I personally don’t know that there will be a single ideal or model. More than likely it will vary by community. The important thing is that a community foundation is engaged with information, considering it as important as housing, education, jobs, etc.

Witt: I want to get back to this: You said, “In the community foundation initiative, requests for grant support will come from community foundations, who in turn will deal with new ideas, organizations, individuals, coalitions, etc. ” So how do you see this working? Do you foresee community foundations coming up with great ideas and then seeking partners, or people and local institutions with great ideas banging on community foundation doors and trying to work a deal that begins with a proposal to this Knight challenge?
Maidenberg: We held a media seminar in February this year which attracted 70+ community foundations. They got a grounding in how the media is changing, and the speed of change. We see some of these community foundations, and others, proposing ideas. It will work all the better if people and local institutions bang on community foundation doors. So both ways are possible. But the proposals need to come from community foundations.

Witt: Hmmm, 70+ community foundations. Wow, I like those odds. So do you see elaborate proposals let’s say like an online information exchange built on complicated software or more simple stuff like teaching folks in the community how to use video cameras and make their own news?
Maidenberg: As always, there will be a range. We’ve heard of some community foundations thinking about elaborate digital public squares, but others are considering how to get more coverage of education, and would like to have an education reporter stationed somewhere to talk about issues. What we are most confident of is that Knight Foundation in Miami cannot figure out what will work best in a particular community. The best ideas, big or small, will come from the community itself.

Witt: Great information, so what did I forget to ask that will help community foundations, institutions or individuals understand this better?
Maidenberg: You covered all the key questions. I would only emphasize again the importance of going to the web site, looking at the information there, especially the FAQ.

Free .TV show from Ustream

Also the forum set up by Bill Densmore of the Media Giraffe project, had several interesting presentations on topics such as teaching journalism literacy, the AP and copyright, social networking tools and teaching citizen journalism. If you have time, they are all worth downloading.

I am going to try to learn more about how this might be a backdoor way for citizens to get their projects jump started. Here is the key graph from an early press release explaining the project:

A $24 million initiative by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation will engage community foundations in a grant-making challenge to find creative uses of media and technology to help keep communities informed and their citizens engaged

After you check out the press release be sure to get more background information from my PJNet.org video with Eric Newton of the Knight Foundation.

Here is today’s press release in full:

New Knight Initiative Seeks to Address Local Information Needs Engaging Community Foundations

$24 Million, Five-Year Project Spurs Innovation through Challenge Grants

MIAMI – A $24 million initiative by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation will engage community foundations in a grant-making challenge to find creative uses of media and technology to help keep communities informed and their citizens engaged.

The five-year Knight Community Information Challenge is launched as the media world undergoes rapid change and acknowledges that there is less local information readily available. The challenge is premised on two strongly held beliefs: 1) in a democracy, information is essential for a community to function properly; it is a core need, and 2) since community foundations are established to meet core community needs, they are logical partners in meeting the information needs of communities.

This initiative is also seen as an opportunity for community foundations to provide civic leadership.

The Knight initiative has three parts:

• A grant-making program will invite community foundations to propose ideas to meet information needs in their communities. Knight will make $20 million available over five years to match funding for the best of these ideas.
•  Once the winners are chosen, teams of “circuit riders” – specialists who bring access to resources and expertise – will be available to help community foundations address their information-needs opportunities. The teams will help community foundations develop the ability to plan and execute their ideas.
• The project includes a Media Learning Seminar on Feb. 16-17, 2009 to help community foundations learn about the information needs of communities in a democracy. The first such seminar of this kind was held in February 2008 when Knight and the Council on Foundations co-hosted a gathering in Miami. The 2009 seminar will offer an opportunity to exchange current knowledge, review existing information needs projects and share best practices. A companion meeting hosted by the Council on Foundations in October 2009 will reach out to more community foundations.

“Many community foundation executives and board members told us they were ready to embrace information as a core part of their mission,” said Alberto Ibargüen, Knight Foundation president and CEO. “Now it’s time for action. Foundations that value information as an essential element for healthy community advancement – whether neighborhood, town, city or region – will find us a willing partner. By inviting the initiatives to come from the communities, we expect them to be both relevant to local needs and varied.”

The challenge is open to all community foundations. Knight plans to consider ideas from other foundations whose focus is local, geographically defined communities, similar to community foundations.

The Knight Community Information Challenge involves a two-step process. Community foundations can visit www.informationneeds.org to propose a project in 200 words or less between June 30 and Sept. 15. Those selected to submit full proposals will be notified within a week of receipt, and full proposals will be due Oct. 15. Each full proposal will be required to provide matching funds.

The initiative is the fourth in a series of Media Innovation Initiatives created by Knight to address the information needs of communities in a democracy. They include:

• The Knight News Challenge, funding ideas that use digital media to deliver news and information to geographically defined communities (www.newschallenge.org);
• The Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy, in partnership with the Aspen Institute, will propose public policy that will facilitate meeting those needs (www.knightcomm.org); and
• The Knight Center for Digital Excellence, a nonprofit consultancy, helps communities across the United States ensure digital access for every citizen (www.knightcenter.info).

Here is what host Bill Densmore of the Media Giraffe Project writes:

What motivates people to launch a local online news community — a “placeblog” and what are their challenges, their successes, the opportunities, vision and passion which accompany this work? Twelve citizen-journalists — “placebloggers” — gathered on Friday, June 6, 2008, for a one-hour conversation at Minnesota Public Radio. Listen to the auto stream of their conversation here. Or download an MP3 podcast for offline listening. Moderated by Bill Densmore, director of the Media Giraffe Project at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Here is more about the conference:

One of the first national gatherings for local, online citizen journalists and entrepreneurs, sometimes called “placebloggers.” Designed for existing and prospective journalists and entrepreneurs. Including workshops on the legal, business, journalistic, marketing, advertising and social aspects of starting and running a local online news and commerce community. Timed and located to coincide with the National Conference on Media Reform.

If you want community foundation funding for local journalism projects, Newton says do your homework. Look at this Knight Foundation site and look specifically at the survey Knight did with community foundations. Then go pay your foundation a visit.

This from a Knight press release:

The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and the Aspen Institute today announced the launch of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy.

The high-level Knight Commission will look into whether the information needs of 21st century American citizens and communities are being met and make recommendations for public policy and private initiatives that will help better meet community information needs.

“The Commission will look at the issues of information, news and society from the perspective of communities across the nation,” said Alberto Ibargüen, Knight Foundation president and CEO. “We want to assess their information needs, then take a snapshot to see how they are being met. The Commission will offer creative recommendations to improve democratic problem-solving at the local level through more and better engagement with relevant news and information.”

Ibargüen and Aspen Institute president and CEO Walter Isaacson are pleased that the Knight Commission will be chaired by:

• Theodore B. Olson, former Solicitor General of the United States
• Marissa Mayer, vice president of search products and user experience for Google

“We begin this inquiry with a totally open mind,” said Olson, a Washington, D.C., attorney. “We want to understand the state of local communities’ access to the information that citizens need for self-governance. We are open to input from all sources.”

 ”The methods of receiving information have changed dramatically over the past several years, and will likely differ community to community,” said Mayer, a West Coast software engineer. “The Knight Commission will assess these information needs and will propose potential solutions.”

The new Knight Commission will include at least a dozen other respected representatives of journalism, communities and policy. The Commission’s executive director is Peter Shane, Davis Chair in Law at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University. He will direct the Commission’s research and writing, and will be advised by public feedback as well as that from scholars, journalists and policymakers. The Knight Commission, funded by $2.3 million in Knight Foundation grants, will meet in public throughout the year and will operate out of the Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program.

Ibargüen and Isaacson, both having strong backgrounds in news, are ex-officio members.

“The business models we’ve relied on to provide news and information to our communities are stressed and changing. New platforms offer an astounding array of choices, creating the most connected world we have ever known with the greatest volume of available data,” said Ibargüen, a longtime newspaper executive and former PBS chairman who also chairs the Newseum board. “But as those choices proliferate and as those virtual communities connect us globally, the need for local, reliable, contextual civic information remains and, I believe, is being met less and less effectively.

“We live in a democratic society built on the premise of an informed electorate” yet the very structure on which that democracy is built “the local election held in a geographically defined community is more and more an uninformed decision. That concerns us.”…

In the late 1940s, the Hutchins Commission addressed the free press, calling for journalism to be presented “in a context that gives it meaning.” In the 1960s, the Kerner Commission, in its inquiry into the causes of racial tensions, called on the mainstream media to reflect all of America. Also 40 years ago, the Carnegie Commission recommended transforming educational television into “public broadcasting,” leading to the nation’s current system of noncommercial public service broadcasting. This Commission will take a comprehensive look at information needs of communities, building on similar successful commissions in the past.