Closing the door on Baghdad

The Boston Globe decided to shut its Baghdad office, while maintaining foreign offices in Beirut, Beijing and Johannesburg.

Don't be fooled. This doesn't mean the war is over. It just means that that budget strapped newspaper can't afford to staff an office in a war zone.

The Boston Globe isn't alone. Foreign bureaus are on the chopping block for a number of high-profile papers.

Newsday, which is owned by Tribune, cut its Mexico City office at the end of 2005. And there is a budget proposal pending approval that will close Newsday's Beijing office. Sadly, Newsday was a pioneer when it opened the Beijing office more than 30 years ago.

While this is hardly a pandemic, foreign coverage, particularly in a war zone, is important to the folks back home. Turning to a limited number of sources for news coverage just seems sketchy.

Cutting Stock Listings Cuts into Circulation

In early February, the Rocky Mountain News announced its plans to reduce its stock listings to a single page. Business editor Rob Reueteman received a firestorm of complaints from long-time readers upset at the change. The majority of the complaints came via Ma Bell instead of AOL. It seems that most of the people frustrated with the change aren't big Internet users.

It's too bad too. The extensive stock listing is available online, but that doesn't help the folks who pay an annual subscription rate to receive this information the old fashioned way.

According to a story available on www.westword.com, the Rocky Mountain News received more than 150 complaint calls following the announcement. They also received about a dozen or so e-mails objecting to the reductions. Fifty four of those complaining canceled their subscriptions.

Although many readers are turning to the Internet as their primary source of news, an older generation hasn't and most likely won't adapt. Many of these readers have already adapted a great deal over the course of their lives. We're talking about a group of people who have made it from the outhouse to the .com. Is reducing the content they desire really necessary? If so, what's next to go?

As convergence continues between print newspapers and their online counterparts, maintaining loyal readers (translation: the ones who pay the bills) is essential.

What's the fine for shooting a lawyer?

Late night talk show hosts, comedians and political cartoonists can't let the Cheney shooting saga die. It's just too easy to crack jokes.

Consider this political cartoon from the San Francisco Chronicle.

But is the event deserving of all this attention? Are Americans addicted to controversies?

In recent years, the news has been filled with sagas – verging on the beginning of tabloid fever. Is this just another one of those cases? Why all of the coverage?

This story should be covered for a couple of reasons, but none less evident than the obvious. It wasn't just a hunting accident – it was the vice president of the United States shooting his friend. Unlike previous administrations, many historians argue that Cheney is one of the most powerful vice presidents of all time.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031013/13cheney.htm

Even more shocking is the way the story found its way into the media. The shooting occurred on a Saturday. But the incident wasn't revealed until Sunday. And then it wasn't by a press conference or a White House representative. The owner of the ranch called a local newspaper to explain the shooting.

In the midst of when Americans are questioning anti-terror domestic spying techniques, the administration shows that it will continue to operate in secret. But in doing so, Cheney may find himself at the center of controversy more often.

Narrowing the Digital Divide

According to the International Telecommunication Union, 14 percent of the world's population is online. However, in the United States, more than 62 percent of the population is connected to the Internet.

In chapter one of Digital Journalism, Kevin Kawamoto discusses the growing number of media outlets that have emerged since the late 1990s. As a result more and more people are turning to the Internet as their source for news. This has dominoed into falling circulation rates for print newspapers and other publications. To meet the demands of their readers, some newspapers are using the Internet as a primary resources for distributing the news. .

Considering that so many Americans have access to the Internet, some people would argue that the so-called "digital divide" is a thing of the past. But is access to this information really equitable? What happens to the people who can't afford a computer with Internet access or live in a rural area without broadband coverage?

And on an international level, what happens to countries that don't have IT infrastructure in place to develop and promote Internet access?

Many news organizations are aware of this divide and have implemented programs to help narrow the gap. For example, BBC has set up the The iGeneration to help bridge this gap, bringing hope that this gap will eventually be eliminated providing equitable access to information for all.

Lines on a Paper

In the words of Robert Crumb, "they are just lines on paper," but cartoons seem to be causing a lot of disruption in the world these days.

The unflattering or offensive pictures of Prophet Mohammed set off a firestorm of violent protests as Europe and Middle East argue over freedom of speech and religious viewpoints.

Check out the cartoons for yourself: http://cagle.msnbc.msn.com/news/blog/bloggifs/Mohammed-cartoons.jpg

Many American newspapers are refusing to air the cartoons, but are covering the resulting controversy. Is it possible to get a sense of the outrage without viewing the cartoons?

Political cartoons are designed to raise eyebrows and get people to think. Just ask Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles.

Toles recently landed in hot water for a cartoon depicting a soldier in a hospital bed as having lost his arms and legs, while Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, in the pretext of a doctor, says: "I'm listing your condition as 'battle hardened.' "

See what the outrage is about.


The chairman of the Joint Chief, Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman and the service chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force wrote a letter to the paper declaring that cartoonist and the newspaper were making light of the sacrifice American soldiers made in fighting the war in Iraq.

The letter charges that the six military leaders "believe you and Mr. Toles have done a disservice to your readers and your paper's reputation by using such a callous depiction of those who have volunteered to defend this nation, and as a result, have suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds. ... As the Joint Chiefs, it is rare that we all put our hand to one letter, but we cannot let this reprehensible cartoon go unanswered."

The cartoonist has issued a statement that he meant no offense toward American soldiers.

Maybe they are just lines on paper, but symbols, whether addressing a war or religious beliefs, are powerful things.

Are pit bulls victims of media myopia?

It seems no city wants them. Around the country, cities and towns are banning pit bulls, citing their dangerous behavior as the primary reason for this exile.

It's happening in Colorado too. Denver has had a ban against the breed for ages (although it was lifted briefly recently). Aurora and Louisville want nothing to do with the same dogs that most owners assure make good family dogs.

Read about it:
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_3372494

Are these dogs really dangerous or is this just an example of media myopia? Why are these dogs continuing to make the headlines?

Reports around the globe illustrate the trend to debate the breed. msnbc.com, usatoday.com, CBS News and Canada's CBC news all recently told stories about towns planning to ban pit bulls

Pit bulls aren't the only dogs that bite. In fact, it was a Labrador retriever who mauled a lady in France so badly that she needed a face transplant.

One grassroots organization pleads with people to voice their opinion on pit bulls, based "on their own experience, not what you hear on the news."

Are the news reports wrongs? Is it just a few bad apples spoiling the bunch?

Could it be as Malcolm Gladwell claims, that it's the owners fault and that it's just sensational news at work again?

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060206fa_fact

Telling War Stories Isn't Easy

For the past week, the news has been filled with updates on ABC co-anchor Bob Woodruff's status following his injury from a roadside bomb in Iraq.

Read about his injuries:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/29/iraq.main/

Woodruff and his cameraman aren't the first reporters injured in the war in Iraq, but they are driving home a reality. Journalism can be a dangerous profession.

In a recent announcement, the International Federation of Journalists declared that in 2005, journalist deaths hit a record high. The report identifies 89 journalists murdered as a result of their profession, but the total number of deaths was 150 in 2005.

The annual report, entitled "Targeting and tragedy – journalists and media staff killed in 2005," reveals that there is a growing trend to assassinate journalists.

Get the full report:
http://www.ifj-asia.org/files/ifj2005killed_list.pdf

According to the report, a large number of the deliberate killings occurred in the Middle East, with all but three of the deaths occurring in Iraq. It seems to make sense: Covering a war is dangerous business.

Woodruff's injuries are just another reminder and serve a symbol for not only how dangerous it is for U.S. soldiers, but also for reporters trying to tell the public what is happening in the war. Telling war stories isn't easy.