The Bailey Blog

The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism is at it again, releasing its latest study . Oh, and the corporate spinners are at it again, trying to make everything sound wonderful when it doesn’t seem believable.

A couple of key findings:

In the past three years, 85% of large daily newspapers and 52% of smaller ones have cut their staffs.

Loss of institutional memory was the number one concern among surveyed editors. Forty-one percent offered comments about losing veteran staff, followed by 37% about the general loss of staff, and 6% were concerned about loss of space.

Forty-eight percent of those surveyed say the tension between the speed, depth and interactivity of the Web compared to the reduction in journalistic standards and accuracy is a concern.

And then, at the end of the laundry list of worries and “wow, that’s why my local newspaper isn’t what it used to be” entries, comes this beauty: 56% believe their product is better than three years ago.

Um, huh?

The staffing levels are down. The news hole is smaller. The news they are covering doesn’t touch on in-depth investigating reporting the way it used to. There is a concern over decreases in journalistic standards and accuracy.

And, let’s face it, the general public doesn’t think too highly of the media either in terms of ability to get the story right or report on the right story in the first place.

But more than half of the editors think their product is better than three years ago?

Now that’s a story – or should I say a tall tale?

If you really want to protect excellence in journalism, stop surveying the editors. Get to the heart of the matter and talk to reporters and their readers. Because that’s a survey you could learn something from.

Photo by Ville Miettinen

If you don’t know what that stands for, pull aside an unabashed person under the age of 25 and they’ll fill you in.

Or you can ask the commissioner at the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles. He’s heard about it all too often recently. See, apparently, WTF is going around a lot in North Carolina these days on, of all places, the state’s license plates .

Apparently, it was the first random letter combination that popped up when North Carolina changed its plate design. Some teenager filled in a grandparent on why they thought the plates were so funny and, boom, it’s suddenly a major catastrophe within the bureaucratic ranks.

But they didn’t go quite far enough when alerting the state’s population on how to get a free replacement plate. You see, when you check out the N.C. DMV’s Web site, you also might find that letter combo as the state’s sample plate. Heck, they even used it as a sample plate for the DMV spokeswoman to carry around when talking about the new plates.

If you’re going to make a public spectacle of something as innocent as a three-letter combination on a license plate, as least have the wherewithal to cleanse your own stock first.

Of course, a better question is why make it an issue in the first place?

So what if someone sees a three-letter acronym used on instant messaging and text messaging programs as potentially offensive? Who says we all have to see the license plate through their distorted view?

Besides that, why open a giant can of worms that is going to lead to banning a lot of letter combinations because other people will find them offensive, or at least offensive enough to try to stir up trouble for the DMV – an agency that is not the favorite of most people in any state.

What about the atheists? They certainly can’t stand to see OMG on any plates.

What about the broken-hearted? They’ll break down crying every time they see ILY pop up on the bumper in front of them.

Certainly those who have just had a rift with a lifelong friend couldn’t bear watching BFF go down the road.

The list here could go on ad infinitum but I think you get my point. Kneejerk reactions by bureaucrats rarely lead to anything good. I say let those things that could be innocent stay innocent. We all need to lighten up and getting to LOL at a funny double-entendre on something as mundane as a license plate might just be the thing we need on the overly tense highways of America.

It seems rather apropos that the passing of journalism giant Tim Russert offered an opportunity for learning about the news industry.

As a certified news junkie and a guy who has to teach MSU students and clients about what makes the media tick, I’m always interested not just in the news but how it’s delivered.

When Russert died last week, I was one of the first people in my circle of friends and colleagues to hear about it. So I spread the word via email and that’s how much of the world’s news is now delivered. What’s more interesting, however, is where I originally heard it from. There was a post on Twitter that caught my attention, followed minutes later by news alerts from Yahoo and USA Today .

Now, the post on Twitter provided a link back to an Associated Press story, so the original news didn’t come via Twitter, but it certainly aided in the rapid distribution. That says something for all forms of online networking. There are times when even a cheerleader like me gets fed up with having to stay connected and keep up with all the various forms of networking out there – but then a moment like being the first to hear about Russert’s death makes up for it.

Another lesson learned from Russert’s passing is that often people end up in the news because they are available.

I often tell clients that you have to build relationships with reporters so they’ll call you. The second part of that lesson is that when they call, you have to answer.

I was quoted in the MSU State News for a story about Russert’s death. As my fiancé put it, “Why did they call you?” Gee, thanks, honey, I’m sure you meant that in the best possible sense!

But, let’s be honest: the plain and simple truth is I was available. I’m an adjunct instructor at MSU’s School of Journalism and I have almost two decades of experience working with the media. Sure, I have some opinions that might matter to folks. But the bottom line is that reporters were looking for someone to speak to for a story on deadline. That meant calling folks on a Sunday afternoon – and on Father’s Day to boot.

So, why was I quoted? Why do people get to hear what I have to say? Because reporters have my number and when they call me, I always pick up the phone.

Rest In Peace Tim Russert, 1950 - 2008