I'm talking about the study from @AmPress and @APNORC that said "only 11% of Americans" support five "core journalism values," including transparency, oversight, the importance of facts, and giving voice to the voiceless.
For instance, researchers asked people if they agree or disagree with this statement: "We need to put a spotlight on problems in society in order to solve them."
72% agreed, and only 6% disagreed.
They did the same with this statement: "It's important to offer a voice to the voiceless."
74% agreed, 4% disagreed.
"The powerful need to be monitored or they will be inclined to abuse their power."
70% agreed, 8% disagreed.
Those look like really strong public support for "core journalism values"!
72% to 6%, 74% to 4%, and 70% to 8%, all on the pro-journalism side.
But the report claims that
— only 46% of Americans actually support oversight
— only 50% support giving a voice to the less powerful, and
— only 29% support "casting a spotlight on a community's problems to solve them"
What?
Two big problems: One is some unfortunate survey design, which you can read about in my story (basically, a question structure suboptimal for the purpose it's being used for and a bad and arbitrary decision on how to define "support")
The other is that...they never actually survey *journalists* to see how *they'd* answer the questions! They just assume that every journalist is 100% behind their somewhat tortured definitions of each value.
(They would not!)
Anyway, this made me cranky, because it doesn't in any way support the idea that only 10% or 20% of Americans "support" journalism or its core values, and yet that's how it was taken, both by people who like journalism and those who want to tear it down.
NYT $100k
Guardian $96k
WSJ $73k (which has always struck me as low!)
Boston Globe $72k
AP $68k
Philly Inq $66k
The WSJ guild minimum salary has seemed low for as long as I've known it (20 years?). Is that's some weird artifact of Dow Jones jobs being under the same contract or something? $73k for a WSJ staff writer seems ridic; does everyone negotiate their own deal?
I love local news, but my god this lawsuit is pure nonsense. It’s as if newspapers sued radio in 1920, billboards in 1940, TV in 1960, direct mail companies in 1980, cable systems in 1990, and businesses for setting up their own websites in 2000.
Do any of you remember the name of a major French novel, translated maybe ~5 years ago into English, whose name was just, like, 3 or 4 capital letters? And "H" was one or two of them?
Like HHRQ, or HRVT, or HMTS, or something?
This was a big enough novel that it got reviewed in the major book reviews, etc. — more attention than a typical translated French novel would get.
Any ideas?
YES WE HAVE A WINNER
(Seriously, there is no better reference desk than my Twitter followers, I love you all)
I am very sorry to report the death of @bydebprice, a tremendous journalist, a Nieman Fellow (Class of 2011), and a real trailblazer for LGBTQ people in newsrooms and around the country.
1/x
One trail she blazed: In 1992, Deb — then an editor in the Washington bureau of the @detroitnews — launched the first nationally syndicated column about gay issues to run in mainstream newspapers.
It's hard to overestimate how significant this was. This was long before the Internet gave Americans a window into any topic or community they wanted. Most people got a huge share of their information about the world from the local daily and local TV news.
In small-town Louisiana, it was still cool in 1926 to arrest "idle negroes" who weren't working for local white farmers.
Once their labor force was captive, farmers would bail them out "as fast as they were locked up" and put them to work to pay off their bail.
(The Rayne Tribune, Oct. 9, 1926.)
Still happening in Shreveport in 1945.
And note the union involvement. People don't realize how much of the anti-union sentiment in the south is based on the desire to continue ownership over the labor of black people after 1865.