Point and Click Journalism

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 24, 2007 8:38 AM

Clarissa Jessup was next in line to ask a question of John Kerry at the University of Florida when another student "stole the mike," she says -- and handed her his digital camera to record the scene.

"The police had already threatened me with arrest" for refusing to "shut up" and sit down as the session was winding down, says Jessup, who adds that she had never met the other student, Andrew Meyer. When Meyer launched into a diatribe, was dragged away by campus cops and subdued with a Taser gun, Jessup, 22, quickly sent the footage to CNN -- because, she says, she wanted national attention and does not like Fox News.

CNN aired the footage last Tuesday hours after receiving it (Jessup also posted it on YouTube), sparking a national debate over whether the police went too far or the journalism student got what he deserved. Without those pictures, the story would have been a mere blip.

It started with a trickle, but television news operations are now awash in video and pictures submitted by ordinary folks. The much-buzzed-about phenomenon of citizen journalism is firmly entrenched, thanks to the spread of digital and cellphone cameras and the rise of an interactive culture.

It is one sweet deal for the networks: small armies of tech-savvy volunteers in places where reporters aren't, offering their services free of charge.

"It's not that different from wanting to show your photos of a trip," says Jay Rosen, a New York University professor and blogger who has launched an online media research effort staffed entirely by volunteers. "It's a way of participating in public life. There's a very potent impulse to share what you have."

Citizen pictures are most vital when disaster strikes: hurricanes, tornadoes, the Minneapolis bridge collapse. All the networks carefully vet the material and use only a fraction of what is submitted, with far more posted on their Web sites than making it to the air.

Fox has received nearly 40,000 videos and pictures in six months under its uReport initiative. "There's something very raw and real about the pictures, because they're not highly produced," says Executive Producer Suzanne Scott. "They really make the viewer feel they're at the story." The only problem, she says, is that "spammers have figured out a way to use the uReport to send in their promos."

MSNBC's FirstPerson program has drawn 28,000 submissions since its launch in late April. "We have two-way conversations, so it's not just about us showing the news, but the community being able to share the news with us," says Gina Stikes, marketing director for MSNBC.com. "It really empowers us, and empowers them as well."

At CNN, the first cable network to launch such an effort 14 months ago, more than 60,000 videos and pictures have poured in from its "I-Reporters." The most newsworthy have involved such events as a Dallas factory fire and a New York steam pipe explosion. On the day of the Virginia Tech massacre in April, CNN paid for an exclusive deal with graduate student Jamal Albarghouti for the first shaky video taken during the shooting.

"Some folks in our industry look down their noses at it a little bit, and that's a huge mistake," says Sue Bunda, CNN's vice president for content development. "It's such a disregard for the value of our audience." She says she got the idea last year when she saw her teenage son's pride in a T-shirt from a video-sharing site -- and says CNN now sends shirts to contributors whose material is aired.

Not all pictures involve breaking news. At ABC's i-Caught site, which generated a six-episode summer series, the most popular video -- played nearly 400,000 times -- is of animal attacks at a South African safari park. MSNBC is soliciting pictures of viewers partying in Las Vegas, for example, while CNN has posted images of Coney Island attractions that could give way to redevelopment. After "NBC Nightly News" aired a series on caring for elderly parents, 6,000 people submitted material about their families.

Some stories might not exist without cellphone cameras, such as the footage of Michael Richards's racist rant at a comedy club. And such footage can be valuable. TMZ.com, the gossip site that pays for information, obtained the Richards video.

The rise of citizen newsgathering is changing the news business in subtle ways. It's an extension of the Facebook culture, in which members post hundreds of pictures of themselves, and the YouTube ethos, where pointing and shooting can capture "macaca"-type embarrassments. And it sends a signal that anyone, not just well-dressed professionals with good hair and a resonant voice, can be a journalist.

Don't Touch That Dial

The network newscasts are stepping up efforts to grab you -- in the opening seconds.

On "NBC Nightly News," Brian Williams has junked the old introduction, in which he was the unseen narrator as video of stories and headlines rolled, following the names of each of his predecessors back to John Cameron Swayze. The new opening is quicker and more conversational, with Williams on screen as graphics appear in a box over his shoulder.

While he had been puzzled by viewer complaints that "waiting one full minute for me to come on is punishment," Williams says that partially ad libbing in front of the camera -- and in a less booming voice -- "fits my style better. I think it's higher energy. Seeing someone standing there is better than hearing someone's voice."

The sequence is similar to the intro on ABC's "World News," in which Charlie Gibson simply stands and reads the headlines.

The "CBS Evening News" has gone in the opposite direction, yanking the opening in which Katie Couric took a step forward to a quick burst of music. In its place is a longer, magazine-style beginning -- with more footage and sound bites from the day's news -- and Couric appearing on screen only briefly.

"It brings an energy and content to the program that is much better than what we were doing," says Executive Producer Rick Kaplan, adding that it resembles the introduction he used when he worked at "Nightline." "What's important is: What are the stories we are covering? . . . We're by no means trying to hide the anchor. She's reading the headlines."

No Dice on Rice

The secretary of state has always been considered a prize catch for the Sunday talk shows. But when the White House offered Condoleezza Rice for appearances eight days ago, after a week focused on Iraq, two programs took the unusual step of turning her down.

Executives at CBS and NBC say Rice no longer seems to be a key player on the war and that her cautious style makes her a frustrating guest.

"I expected we'd just get a repetition of the administration's talking points, which had already been well circulated," says Bob Schieffer, host of CBS's "Face the Nation," who questioned two senators instead. "We'd had a whole week of that with General Petraeus and President Bush. I thought it was more important to get a sense of where the Senate Republicans were."

Tim Russert, moderator of "Meet the Press," who also hosted two senators, declined to comment on why he turned down Rice.

"She was happy to have her Sunday morning back," says State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. "There are lots of weekends where we're getting urgent phone calls requesting her to be on Sunday shows."

Footnote: None of the five shows turned down Hillary Clinton yesterday, although there was grumbling about the lack of exclusivity.

Unsafe at Any Speed?

When General Motors ran a six-page advertising supplement in last week's Washington Post, touting its environmental credentials, many newsroom staffers were upset. The reason: The section was filled with articles bearing bylines of Post writers.

Why was the paper lending its credibility to an automaker that it covers? Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. says that because the stories were previously published, "we were not doing journalism specifically for this section."

Downie says he is undecided about such cooperation with future advertisers: "I'm not sure where the line is on that, and that's why I agreed to go this far."

Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell said in her weekly critique that the use of the bylines "bothers the hell out of me" and that "it doesn't blur the line. It obliterates it."

Hillary's Sexual Preference?

Well, I never thought I'd see this headline: "Hillary Clinton: I'm Not a Lesbian." And it's not even 2008!

"Hillary Clinton officially declared she's not a lesbian - not that there's anything wrong with that," says the Daily News.

"During an interview with The Advocate to be published next week, Sean Kennedy, the gay magazine's news and features editor, asked the presidential candidate, 'How do you respond to the occasional rumor that you're a lesbian?'

" 'People say a lot of things about me, so I really don't pay any attention to it,' Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) replied. 'It's not true, but it is something that I have no control over. People will say what they want to say.' "

And publish what they want to publish, I guess.

As I mentioned earlier, Hillary did the full Ginsburg yesterday--Russert, Schieffer, Stephanopoulos, Blitzer and Wallace. After the first taping, from her home in Chappaqua, she asked an aide whether the other shows could see the pooled satellite feed of the rival programs. They could, meaning their anchors and producers would know some of her answers in advance. No matter: She stayed totally on message.

Furthermore . . .

The New York Post was right after all; the New York Times did give MoveOn a discount and wasn't straight about it. Ombudsman Clark Hoyt nails the paper here.

I thought it was pretty clear by now that Newt wasn't running, but he is again making noises about running:

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will begin next week to seek financial commitments from donors for a presidential-nomination bid, the Georgia Republican told The Washington Times yesterday.

"If he can get pledges for $30 million over the next three weeks, he will join the Republican presidential-nomination race -- a prospect he had been downplaying until yesterday.

"But the prospect of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York winning the Democratic nomination and the presidency is moving more voters to seek him out, he told The Times."

I'm still doubtful.

The Boston Globe explains "how Obama's own experience in lawmaking involved dealings with the kinds of lobbyists and special interests he now demonizes on the campaign trail."

Is Obama too aloof? Check out this Chicago Tribune piece:

"Denise Bren's voice trembled as she stood in a city park near her home to ask Sen. Barack Obama what he would do to help people like her struggling to pay their bills. 'From the cost of gas to the cost of a dozen eggs, the price keeps going up and the wages don't,' she said. 'I'm in a family of two and can't imagine what it does to a family of four or more.'

"Skipping any expression of sympathy for Bren's personal plight on a day when he was focused on the Iraq war, Obama (D-Ill.) launched into a detailed, six-point plan outlining the economic policies he would change as president . . .

"A former Harvard Law Review president and constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago, Obama can sometimes seem professorial. It is one of the reasons he sometimes fails to connect with working-class voters."

Obama has a new tax proposal, and Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum is not exactly bowled over:

"Here's Barack Obama's 'bold and innovative plan to reform America's tax code':

"A new $500 income tax credit for everyone who works and pays payroll taxes.

"A new mortgage interest tax credit for homeowners who can't currently take advantage of the existing mortgage tax deduction.

"Elimination of all income tax for seniors with incomes under $50,000 per year.

"A new program in which the IRS sends prefilled tax returns to people with simple taxes.

"I know that it's unfair to expect Obama to live up to his own hype every day. Not every proposal from his campaign is really going to be bold and innovative, even if he says it is. But really, if he's planning to campaign as the guy with fresh ideas, he's going to have to do better than this.

"#1 is basically a convoluted way of reducing payroll taxes. It's OK, I guess. #2 is dumb. Why should homeowners get even more special treatment than they get now? #3 is just special interest group pandering. There's no reason a senior citizen making $45,000 should be exempt from paying income tax. #4 is fine, but trivial, and doesn't actually change the tax code at all.

"I know the Obama fans out there are going to jump all over this, but I have to say that the guy's losing me. He's an inspiring speaker, and given the realities of how presidents exercise power that's no small thing. But he sure is cautious to a fault."

Former ABC correspondent Richard Gizbert takes a swipe at Jon Stewart for his handling of John McCain:

"McCain is a candidate for President of the United States. And he lies.

"McCain's most recent appearance was made over the phone from New Hampshire and the two men tossed around ideas for new names for McCain's campaign bus, the Straight Talk Express.

"They kibitzed a little. They called each other my friend and joked about how McCain's 11th appearance on the show was a record.

"There was no examination of the candidate's ideas, no exploration of McCain's ludicrous statements on the so-called 'Petraeus' (read: White House) report on the so-called surge (read: escalation) . . .But as Stewart said, repeatedly, in their most recent broadcast encounter, John McCain is his friend.

"By giving this kind of politician a free pass on his show, Jon Stewart is doing the very thing he has quite rightly criticized the mainstream media for: failing to do the job we have come to expect from him.

"He may be helping his friend, the candidate. But he's hurting America. And it's not funny."

But it's okay if he kids around with Democratic candidates, as long as he roughs up Republicans?

I've been scouring the Net, searching for anyone this side of Mary Mapes who says Dan Rather helped himself with his $70-million suit against CBS. No luck. Here's what media observers are saying, starting with Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar:

"Is it rational? Opinion seems to be . . . no. Not so much, to revive the single worst mistake you ever made and try to explain it by saying that it wasn't really yours. Whoever counseled him on that strategy was an idiot -- if he had thrown his lot in with the other fired staffers, admitting responsibility but not all the responsibility, seeing as [former CBS News chief Andrew] Heyward had signed off on the piece and Moonves had all but exculpated Heyward. The scapegoat charge might have rung more true if others below Rather -- the guy who said those words on screen -- had not been fired while Rather kept his job."

National Review's Jonah Goldberg:

"Now he's back like a crazy man who shows up unannounced at the Christmas party smelling like cabbage and old newspapers, wearing a trench coat but no pants. He wants $20 million in compensatory damages and a whopping $50 million in punitive damages. I'm no fancy lawyer guy, but last I checked, punitive damages were awarded to send a signal that 'this must never happen again.' So what's the 'this' here? That network news divisions should never again spend weeks selling off their credibility like a fire sale at Wal-Mart, claiming their story was 'fake but true,' only to cave in to reality and admit they made a mistake?"

Jeff Jarvis: "Dan Rather is proves himself once again to be such a egotistical fool. He's crying -- puffy red eyes and all -- and suing CBS because they eased him aside (when they should have dumped him long before). He still refuses to take responsibility for muffing a story and harming his own credibility and that of the network and, for that matter, the profession . . .

"And he has such an oversized ego that he can' t see how egotistical it is for him to sue for not getting enough attention and airtime. The bottom line remains that he reported to the world a story that relied on documents that turned out to be fake but by refusing to seek the truth on them or acknowledge the issue for days -- or even until now -- he pulled the rug out from under his own story and his own reliability. He shows that as many charged, he does have a grudge with George Bush."

Roger L. Simon of Pajamas Media says "the extent of the former anchorman's delusions . . . now approaches clinical cognitive dissonance. Rather somehow still believes he was promulgating the truth, unable to make the obvious distinction between what he 'feels' to be true and an evident forged document.

"Or he seems to believe that because his arguments thrash about like some pathetic wounded animal, one moment implying that CBS forced him to promote a lie and the next implying that it wasn't a lie after all. Cognitive dissonance, indeed."

Howard Kurtz hosts CNN's weekly media program "Reliable Sources."