Gannett Blog continues First Amendment duty

As I have noted before, there are some bloggers in today's new age of journalism who are doing good First Amendment journalism. Case in point is the former USA Today reporter Jim Hopkins who publishes Gannett Blog. 

Hopkins started Gannett Blog anonymously while still employed at the USA Today, which is owned by Gannett, but has since come out from the shadows after he took a buyout in January of 2008. Since his departure, Hopkins has served as a watchdog over Gannett and provided employees with a place to air concerns, frustrations and sometimes mean-spirited remarks about their company. There is some debate about how much of the old journalistic standards Hopkins has left in the wake with his blog, as he allows people to post defaming remarks about individuals anonymously on his comments section, but there is no doubt that his is one of the best industry blogs online. 

Recently, Hopkins began scrutinizing former Gannett CEO Al Neuharth who founded the Freedom Forum after retiring from the company. By searching more than 9,000 pages of IRS tax returns filed by the Freedom Forum, a non-profit with a mission to serve journalism and the First Amendment, Hopkins reveals many questionable donations including money given to an adoption agency run by Neuharth's wife. 

From Gannett Blog:

Public documents show Freedom Forum in Washington, D.C., made $65,700 in donations to Home At Last between 2000 and 2007. This was when the private foundation should have been reining in its famously undisciplined spending. After all, administrators were about to tap the endowment, an investment fund that helps pay salaries and other expenses, in order to build a new home for the foundation's signature project -- a museum about news called the Newseum.

Freedom Forum disclosed the gifts in public Internal Revenue Service documents that do not explain why a journalism foundation would underwrite an adoption agency. The documents certainly don't disclose one likely reason: Fornes is the wife of Freedom Forum's multimillionaire founder, Al Neuharth (left).

The Home At Last grants are among hundreds of gifts Freedom Forum made in 2000-2007 to non-profits that seem to share little in common with the foundation's mission, a Gannett Blog review of more than 9,000 pages of IRS documents found. In other cases, money went to causes that appeared to benefit foundation officials more than the foundation itself. For example, Freedom Forum has given:

$15,000 to the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, a leading political lobby.

$34,500 to the United States Equestrian Team in Gladstone, N.J., to promote competitive horseback riding events.

$23,000 to the 30-year-old Whale Museum, housed in a former Odd Fellows fraternal hall on an island near Seattle.

$35,500 to the Montessori Parent Organization in Indian Harbour Beach, Fla.

$46,500 to Holy Trinity Episcopal Academy in Melbourne, Fla.

$5 million to the University of Mississippi for a journalism center not honoring Gannett or the foundation -- but the foundation’s chairman and CEO, Charles Overby, an Ole Miss grad, and long-time Neuharth aide.

Judges bar access to elected official cell phones

In a ruling this week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said a local newspaper cannot view all of the records of two Pittsburgh City Council members' taxpayer-funded cell phones, including call logs and text messages. 

In an unanimous ruling, the Court said the lawmakers have a right to privacy despite using the city-funded phones for personal and political purposes. The case was brought to court by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in 2003 after it sought records for the city-owned cell phones. The newspaper wanted to know which calls were personal in nature and if the city council members reimbursed taxpayers for the use. 

“Appellants have failed to set forth any cogent argument that the disclosure of the telephone numbers ... would serve a strong public function,” Justice Seamus McCaffery wrote in the majority opinion.

A similar ruling in May by a judge in Massachusetts barred a local newspaper from viewing the phone records of elected officials using city-owned cell phones, some of which racked up monthly bills of $400 or more.  

The struggle for the public's right to know is playing out across the country. In Colorado, The Denver Post is suing Gov. Bill Ritter for 19 months of cell phone records his office has refused to release. In New Jersey, a city councilwoman recently won the right to review the records of all city-owned cell phones in her bid to uncover city employees using government property for personal use. 

The public's access to government cell phone records has been instrumental in recent years and the latest rulings could have a very negative impact on a newspaper's ability to uncover hidden truths about elected officials. Just this year, the extramarital affairs of the former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick were exposed by the Detroit Free Press after the newspaper obtained text messages from the mayor's cell phone.

First Amendment Headlines for Dec. 24, 2008

Editors note: As much as I would like to see newspapers keep published content available for eternity in the digital archive of history (it is the 21st Century and all) I cannot guarantee all links posted in Headlines will remain active.

- Corporate Sponsors Pay for Inauguration Parties - USA Today
- Obama Releases Report on Blago Contracts - The Associated Press
- SEC Inaction Helped Fuel Madoff Scheme - Financial Times (Paid subscription required)
- Despite Millions in Surplus Dollars, MD. Hospitals Sue for Fees - Baltimore Sun
- Bush Pardons Housing Scammer - Politico
- Group Sues Over Mountaintop Mining - The Associated Press
- Gannett Investigation into CEO Gift Giving Continues - Jim Hopkins' Gannett Blog

Science community angry at CNN

An interesting letter was penned to CNN editors this week in protest over the network's decision to dismantle its entire science team earlier this month. Jointly signed by the presidents of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, and the World Federation of Science Journalists, the letter nails the network for being short-sided. 

It reads as follows:

Dear Mr. Walton and Mr. Klein,

We are writing on behalf of several national and international science journalism organizations to express our strong concern about CNN’s shortsighted decision to cut its science, technology and environment unit in one fell swoop. In wielding this ax, your network has lost an experienced and highly regarded group of science journalists at a time when science coverage could not be more important in our national and international discourse.

The environment, energy technology, space exploration, and biotechnology are crucial ongoing stories that will have growing prominence as a new American president takes office and nations confront a wide range of science-based global issues. As the impacts of climate change intensify, shows like “Planet in Peril” cannot make up for informed daily coverage of this important issue and other science topics in the public eye. As with political and policy reporting, it is important that the underlying science be covered by journalists with the skills and knowledge to sort out competing claims.

Concerned as we are about the dismissal of our colleagues—including the award-winning science reporter Miles O’Brien in New York; Peter Dykstra, head of CNN’s science unit in Atlanta; and five other science producers there—this letter is not about individual journalists. Rather, the wholesale dismantling of the science unit calls into question CNN’s commitment to bringing the most informative science news to the general public, including the science-minded younger audience. If CNN wants to be truly international, it will be at odds with the trend toward increased science coverage in many parts of the world.

It is difficult for us to imagine why CNN, which has earned a justifiably strong reputation for its science journalism in the past, has opted to widen the gap in science coverage rather than strive to fill it. We would hope that you would reconsider your decision and reassemble a cadre of well-trained science journalists that would enable you to expand unfolding science news and in-depth coverage, not shrink it.

Your action is an unfortunate symbol of recent widespread cutbacks in specialty science journalism. Our groups will continue to push for more science coverage by the major media and to do our part to promote the highest possible professional standards for communicating complex science-based issues across the spectrum. We plan to publicize this letter as widely as possible to encourage further discussion of the future of science journalism. Thanks for your attention.

Now, I am all for science journalism. I subscribe to National Geographic, Wired and find articles about NASA and space exploration especially interesting. I hope that good work continues. But, I take issue with the assumption that CNN, an international news network, has a duty to provide science writing to readers and viewers. 

CNN, like most other journalistic enterprises today, is losing money. Although the Internet has not hurt the network cable channels in the same way it has the newspaper industry, it's still slicing into bone. After all, the expensive salaries of Campbell Brown, Wolf Blitzer and Larry King don't come cheap. Neither do the travel expenses the network incurs covering every major world event that unfolds. 

As traditional newspapers continue to erode, democracy will become more dependent on the nation's largest news outlets, both in print and broadcast, to step up their First Amendment reporting. It's not unconceivable that in the next five or 10 years investigations into government and business that are essential to our democracy will only be afforded by CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News and the nation's largest newspapers. If CNN needs to cut its science department to better ensure First Amendment reporting continues then I am alright with that. Other than reporting on the Bush administration's attempts to edit out data confirming global warming from federal documents I don't see science writing as fulfilling journalism's First Amendment duty. 

Now, if CNN uses the money it saves from this latest move to produce more "journalism" from the same ilk as Dateline NBC's Chris Hansen's "To Catch a Predator" series I will be the first one to scream in protest and write another donation check to National Geographic. 

First Amendment Headlines for Dec. 22, 2008

Editors note: As much as I would like to see newspapers keep published content available for eternity in the digital archive of history (it is the 21st Century and all) I cannot guarantee all links posted in Headlines will remain active.

- Taken For a Ride: How Miami-Dade Transit Tax Went off Track - The Miami Herald

- AP Study Finds $1.6 Billion Went to Bailed-Out Bank Execs - The Associated Press

- Where Did the Bailout Money Go? Banks Aren't Saying - The Associated Press

- Obama Blago Records May Stay Under Wraps - Politico

- Manager: Foundation Powerless to Enforce Rules; Punts on Questions about $40k Dubow Fund - Gannett Blog

Cheney: First Amendment doesn't apply to me

Attorneys for Vice President Dick Cheney said in a court filing that his official White House records are private and he alone will determine what records will be given to the National Archive and which will not. Cheney's filing is in response to a court filing made by Citizens for Ethics in Government (CREW) which is suing for the right to make the records public.

CREW is one of many fairly new non-profits that have been created in recent years to go after government officials who they believe are not following the law. Despite some critics who claim CREW is a progressive organization that chooses only to go after conservative politicians and causes, the non-profit has spurned many First Amendment cases in court and garnered a lot of media attention.

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Dick Cheney's lawyers are asserting that the vice president alone has the authority to determine which records, if any, from his tenure will be handed over to the National Archives when he leaves office in January.

That claim is in federal court documents asking that a lawsuit over the records be dismissed. Cheney leaves office Jan. 20, potentially taking millions of records that might otherwise become public.

"The vice president alone may determine what constitutes vice presidential records or personal records, how his records will be created, maintained, managed and disposed, and are all actions that are committed to his discretion by law," according to a Dec. 8 filing by Cheney's office with the U.S. District Court.

Cheney is being sued by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that is trying to ensure that no presidential records are destroyed or handled in a way that makes them unavailable to the public.

The 1978 Presidential Records Act requires that all presidential and vice presidential records to be transferred to the National Archives immediately upon the end of the president's last term and charges the archivist with preserving and controlling access to presidential records. The law allows exceptions for personal or purely party records.

Blogging can include watchdog role

Although I have little hope the new media blogoshpere will produce much watchdog blogging on government and corporations, there are some trained professionals who are doing exactly that. Case in point is former USA Today business reporter Jim Hopkins' Gannett Blog. 

Hopkins has built a steady following by blogging on his former company and has published a number of investigative reports looking into one of the nation's largest newspaper company operations. His most recent report on Gannett CEO Craig Dubow's use of Gannett Foundation dollars  to create a scholarship fund at Western Carolina University in his own name is worthy of mention. Although the amount of money directed to the scholarship fund is mere pennies in the bucket of the Gannett Foundation, the reporting is one example among very few where a blogger has employed original watchdog reporting. 

From Gannett Blog:

Under pressure, Western Carolina University has now acknowledged that the Gannett Foundation quietly helped CEO Craig Dubow and his wife, Denise, establish a scholarship in their name -- with no credit to Gannett, and off-limits to most employees' children.

The university, in Cullowhee, N.C., disclosed the foundation's role in the Craig A. and Denise W. Dubow Endowed Scholarship Fund yesterday, only after I filed an open-records request last week for any public documents that could explain the whereabouts of $40,000 Dubow funneled to WCU in 2007 and 2006.

The gifts were authorized under a benefit available only to Dubow (left) and a handful of other highly-paid current and former executives, several of whom have used foundation money to fund scholarships in their names, too. Dubow, 54, was paid $7.5 million in cash and stock last year. Much of that stock is now worthless; shares have plunged 79% from a year ago.

There's nothing illegal here. But Dubow's actions, combined with the foundation's refusal to fully disclose them, show how brazenly Gannett pampers the top brass -- even as it slashed thousands of jobs, froze the pension plan, and imposed other harsh steps to restore prosperity. Only yesterday, Dubow warned: "Next year will continue to be difficult."

First Amendment Headlines for Dec. 19, 2008

Editors note: As much as I would like to see newspapers keep published content available for eternity in the digital archive of history (it is the 21st Century and all) I cannot guarantee all links posted in Headlines will remain active.

- Tax Break May Have Helped Cause Housing Bubble - The New York Times

- One-third of Dallas-area nursing homes get lowest possible Medicare rating - Dallas Morning News

- 1 in 7 8th graders fail proficiency test - The Killeen Daily Herald
- Abuse of prescriptions continues to increase in Marshfield area - The Marshfield News Herald

Retiring USA Today Editor laments loss of watchdog role

The writing is on the wall. During an interesting Q&A with Poynter, Richard Curtis, the founding visual editor of USA Today, expressed his concern with the faltering newspaper industry and its inability to continue serving its role as a watchdog over government. 

From the Q&A:

What do you think is next for USA Today?

Curtis: As much investment as I have in this institution and in its people, I want it to succeed wildly. Ultimately, I think it will be the last paper standing. I think there are dire times ahead for newspapers, in general.

I love reading local newspapers. But I think their economic model is not sustainable. And I don't think that bodes well for newspapers or for democracy.

I think without a healthy, unencumbered newspaper model to provide a watchdog role over public officials especially -- it does not speak well for the future of the country. I think we have to do everything within our power to guard against that happening.

However, the business models haven't been developed that are going to make that watchdog journalism sustainable, except on a national level.

Having worked for a national news organization all of these years, I can tell you that it's almost impossible to shine that spotlight into the dark corners of local government from that perspective.

... I don't think the answer is the Internet, I'll be honest with you. I think it's part of the solution, but it's not the solution, for many, many reasons.

I don't think the business model is there for the Internet -- despite people saying that the growth in online advertising is doing so well. They're charging pennies for it. And pennies will not sustain the kind of rigorous journalism that's necessary, unless journalists are willing to work for free.

Curtis' point that local newspapers especially lack the ability to employ watchdog journalism with current staffing levels is a good one. Although the nation's largest newspapers have sustained newsroom staffing to allow for months-long investigations to continue (most notably the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and the Washington Post, all of which have generally avoided major layoffs to their newsrooms) community newspapers, which write for a majority of the nation's newspaper readers, have not. 

Depending on the location and the owner of a given community publication, newsroom staffing has been cut by 20-50 percent in recent years. The result has been a serious reduction in watchdog reporting and a disintegration of journalism's First Amendment duty. I've personally seen and heard the horror stories of overworked city editors telling reporters they are no longer expected to do investigative journalism because they can't afford the overtime and their 40 hours each week must be used to pump out two to three daily stories in order to "feed the beast". 

In many cases, understaffed community newspapers have one reporter covering the city council, the county commissioners and the state legislature all at the same time. How much corruption can be uncovered when a reporter is carrying that load? I know of some community newsrooms that ask four to five reporters to pump out more than 40 stories each week. Anybody who can do simple math can see how in-depth, investigative journalism is nearly impossible to do under that load. 

Although government and corporate corruption occurs at the highest levels of our nation's existence, it also is rampant at the community level. The city council member or small-town mayor accepting a bribe or directing city contracts to his brother's construction firm happens and needs to be exposed. Unfortunately, the hard-working and talented journalists at the Times, the Post and the Journal don't have the reach to cover those important stories. 

First Amendment Headlines for Dec. 18, 2008

Editors note: As much as I would like to see newspapers keep published content available for eternity in the digital archive of history (it is the 21st Century and all) I cannot guarantee all links posted in Headlines will remain active.

- Non-profit Profits Senator - Lexington Herald-Leader

- Madoff's Desperate Acts to Save Fund From Implosion - The New York Post

- On Wall Street, Bonuses, Not Profits, Were Real - The New York Times

- No More Probation Officers for City - The Herald Sun

- Grant Audit Blasts City: Grant Funds Paid for Property Twice - The Daily Advocate

- Nearly Half of Homes in County Fall in Value - The Cincinnati Enquirer

- Poverty is Rising in Affluent Suburbs - The Dayton Daily News

- Police Pursuits Can be Costly -- In Money and Lives - The Philadelphia Daily News

- Hornet Fighters May Face Another Inspection Following California Crash - The Beaufort Gazette

First Amendment Headlines for Dec. 17, 2008

Editors note: As much as I would like to see newspapers keep published content available for eternity in the digital archive of history (it is the 21st Century and all) I cannot guarantee all links posted in Headlines will remain active. 

- Governor Hires Friend Despite Hiring Freeze - Montgomery Advertiser

- Delayed Raid Likely Cost Reporter His Life - The Chauncey Bailey Project

- Childhood Poverty on the Rise - The Record

- Law Won't Go Swimmingly: Equipment for Pool Safety Not Ready - The Republican American

- Earmark Helps Businesses, Hurts Troops - The Seattle Times

- Bibb County Giving Year-End Bonuses to Employees - The Macon Telegraph

The loss of a two-newspaper town

Competition breeds good journalism. 

Publishers fighting for readers inevitably push for the best content possible. Whether it's a cunning sports analysis from a beloved columnist or good government writing from an ace reporter, top editors are always looking to bring the best journalism to their pages -- especially if their readers have another newspaper in town they can take their subscription to when not satisfied. But, when one newspaper monopolizes a market too often the result is a downgrade in customer service, quality (expensive) journalism and investment in talented (expensive) staff. 

After all, why invest profits back into the product when you're the only game in town? 

One of the few remaining two-newspaper towns might soon be one. The E.W. Scripps Co., the owner of the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, recently announced it is seeking a buyer for the 149-year-old newspaper. If a qualified buyer is not found by the first quarter of 2009 the paper will likely close. Much has been written about the Rocky's possible closure and the many good journalists who will be thrown into a market unable to absorb them. But, what about the impact on media's First Amendment duty in Denver? 

Unfortunately, it will most likely suffer. 

With no daily competition and only one place for readers to go, the lone remaining daily, The Denver Post, will likely no longer feel the same pressure to invest the same resources into expensive investigative journalism and coverage of government as it does today. After all, if readers don't feel they are receiving the best newspapering in town where are they going to turn? 

Although in better shape than the Rocky, the Post is only just above water itself. Publisher Dean Singleton told union bosses representing the newspaper's employees last week that $20 million in operating expenses must be cut and Moody's Investors Services recently downgraded the bond rating of the Post's parent company, MediaNews, further into "junk bond" territory. With such tumultuous financial times facing the Post, it's doubtful the newspaper will take this monopolistic opportunity to upgrade its investment in watchdog journalism. 

Coverage of the upcoming 2010 election could be one of the first "big" First Amendment stories negatively impacted by the closure of the Rocky. The 2010 election will be the most important in a decade due to redistricting that will occur afterward. When politicians go to slice up the map and shape new districts to their liking and political lean, the party in control will have the upper hand. Currently, both the Post and the Rocky cover statewide elections with zeal. They have to. Many readers, both in print and online, turn to newspapers for information about candidates, campaigns and the election season. Typically, advertising revenue increases during an election season along with interest in the news. With only one major metro newspaper operating in Colorado by 2010, political coverage could be jeopardized. 

It's no secret that publications are often "in the tank" for certain political causes or politicians. Media bias is as old as the printing press. As a journalist, I truly believe most reporters feel a sense of duty to bring objectivity to their political coverage but many editorial boards don't. With only one major newspaper in Colorado dedicating the resources and the time to follow important candidates and campaigns, residents run the risk of getting election news from only one source, bias and all.

Taking political bias out of the conversation all together, yet another concern arises: A total lack of coverage in the first place. 

It's expensive to take a reporter and photographer out of the newsroom in order to follow gubernatorial and Senate candidates around the state. Hotel rooms, mileage reports and daily out-of-office expenses add up quickly. In the old days, editors had no choice but to go with the candidates. If they didn't follow the campaigns to the smallest podunk towns across the state their competition would and valuable readers would be lost. But, without competition the decision to keep the reporter and photographer in the newsroom and let the campaigns go it alone will be more tempting. And, as any politician will tell you, a promise made when no one is listening really isn't a promise at all. 

Coming soon: Why community newspapers and wire services such as the Associated Press can't fill the void. 

Welcome to the First Amendment Fan Blog

My name is Jason Kosena. I am a government and investigative reporter who has worked for both family-owned and corporate newspapers, as well as for an online non-profit daily Web publication. I am starting this blog out of a concern that the demise of traditional media will inevitably lead to an erosion of the First Amendment duty to serve as a watchdog over government, business and the politicians who we trust to run our country and communities. 

The bottom line is that it comes down to the bottom line. Investigative reporting is expensive. Ensuring that First Amendment duty, which includes open records requests, employment of highly-trained professionals and time and energy, costs money -- a lot of it. New media bloggers lack the funding and the training to do serious investigations. Trending data, following endless paper trails and preparing easy to understand graphics is the expensive part of good journalism. Linking to and commenting on it after the fact -- as most bloggers do -- is the easy part.

The intent of this blog is not to take over the First Amendment duty that traditional media are leaving in the wake as the industry continues to shed staff, resources, paper editions and purpose. It is more to provide insight and to compile and pay tribute to the First Amendment journalism still being done by the over-worked and under-paid reporters and editors around the country. It is through their blood, sweat and dedication that our democracy functions properly under the microscope of truth and transparency.