In March of this year, National Public Radio (NPR) revealed that by the end of 2008, 23.6 million people were tuning into its broadcasts each week. In fact, NPR’s ratings have increased steadily since 2000, and they’ve managed to hold on to much of their 2008 election coverage listenership bump (with over 26 million people tuning in each week so far in 2009), unlike many of their mainstream media counterparts.

Compared to cable news, where most networks are shedding viewers, and newspapers, where circulation continues to plummet, NPR is starting to look like they have the future of news all figured out. Or at least, they appear to doing a lot better at it than the rest of the traditional media.

But what is NPR doing differently that’s causing their listener numbers to swell? They basically have a three-pronged strategy that is helping them not only grow now, but also prepare for the future media landscape where traditional methods of consumption (TV, radio, print) could be greatly marginalized in favor of digital distribution.

via Why NPR is the Future of Mainstream Media.

Journalists, start your skepticism.

In covering the proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street don’t repeat the failed lapdog practices that so damaged our reputations in the rush to war in Iraq and the adoption of the Patriot Act. Don’t assume that Congress must act instantly, as so many news stories state as if it was an immutable fact. Don’t assume there is a case just because officials say there is.

The coverage of the Paulson plan focuses on the edges, on the details. The focus should be on the premise. And be skeptical of what gullible Congressional leaders, most of them up before the voters in a few weeks, say after being given a closed-door meeting on supposed horrors.

The Administration has scared the markets and some key legislative leaders, but it has not laid out a coherent, specific and compelling need for this enormous proposal, which is the equivalent of a one-time 55 percent income tax surcharge. (Instead the money will be borrowed, so ask from whom and how this much can be raised so quickly if the credit markets are nearly seized up with fear.)

Ask this question — are the credit markets really about to seize up?

Read the rest at Dear Journalists, Don’t Be Suckers About This Bailout | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

There has been constant coverage of a few Clinton supporters who are upset that she lost – thats understandable – but if you listen to the news you get the impression that these people are eager to go out and support John McCain. McCain’s platform is so far from what Clinton stood for in the primary season that you have to question what these few, but vocal, Clinton supporters wanted out of this election.

Were they voting for an X chromosome instead of the political positions held by Clinton? I really don’t want to think that is the case, but it may well be true for a small group of people. I was keeping count on the NPR coverage that I was able to listen to during my commute and the number of women that were interviewed on this issue outnumbered the men by at least ten to one. And even then, the overwhelming of these Hillary button wearign delegates said that when push comes to shove in November, they will be supporting Obama over McCain.

Eric Alterman wrote a nice column in The Nation that really sums up the problems with the media coverage of this overblown idea of a split within the Democratic Party. He exposes the echo-chamber effect driving this phenomenon as journalists use each other as ‘sources’.

The following is a small except of Media Gone Mad. It’s worth reading the entire article if you have time.

…

The dead horse of supposed dead-end Hillary supporters is flogged into a pulp by the authors. They begin on a note that had me hopeful: “Neither Sen. Barack Obama nor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has any possible sane, rational reason for wanting tensions to continue.”

How true–but then the authors take a 180-degree turn toward insanity. Take a look at whom they cite when it comes to evidence of this supposed disunity: other journalists. There’s John F. Harris of The Politico, the AP’s Scott Lindlaw, Susan Page of USA Today, Patrick Healy of the New York Times, Anne Kornblut of the Washington Post, Geoff Earle and Maggie Haberman of the New York Post. Each offers evidence that is either purely editorial and unsourced, or sourced anonymously. For example, Harris: “For the next two days, a convention that belongs to Obama will be dominated by the same two people who dominated the Democratic Party for the last generation and who have come to Denver in much different roles than they wanted”; Page: “Clinton-watching has become the mesmerizing sideshow of the Democratic National Convention that will nominate Barack Obama”; Kornblut: “Obama’s decision to pass her over [for Vice President] remains central to the ongoing story of their strained relationship. It has also contributed to what associates say has been a difficult emotional period for the former first lady in the two months since ending her bid.”

It’s all “associates say,” or “some Clinton delegates,” or “an official familiar with conversations,” or “one adviser.” Can we actually get some names and positions, so that we can judge the (dubious) veracity of a Clinton-Obama war? Mostly, all we have are the mealy-mouthed assertions from other journalists–”Clinton, if sour, is pouting passively,” write Earle and Haberman. That means, Hillary is acting normal, but we’re pretending that maybe she’s mad on the inside.

The only non-journalist voices expressing anything close to a sense of disunity belong to Mary Boergers, a Maryland delegate who wants to cast a vote for Clinton; L. Douglas Wilder, the mayor of Richmond, Virginia (“The question is, are the Clintons ready?”), and Leon Panetta (“Sometimes dealing with the Clintons is like dealing with Brett Favre”). Wilder and Panetta’s comments are somewhat obtuse, and then there’s one delegate. This is what The Note describes as “the rivalry for the ages”?

…

Read the rest at Media Gone Mad

An entire generation of young people in the United States have turned off their Playstations long enough to register to vote and turn up at the polls where they have helped set records for voter turnout in state primaries around the nation.

The American people seemed to be using 2008 as a year to redefine themselves as a people. Concerned citizens and activists are using the Internet to stay in touch with their representatives. Important information, like video footage of Condaleezza Rice telling bald-faced lies to Congress, are being spread via e-mail forwards and blog posts. And NBC’s vile attempt to bring the Bionic Woman back to television has been canceled. All in all, things seemed to be looking up for Americans and the rest of the world.

That warm illusory cocoon dissolved into an icky, sour, green mess when I opened my e-mail this morning. In among my usual messages was a press release from The Bender Hammerling Group (BHG). BHG is a public relations firm that has New Jersey based Pinnacle Foods as one of its clients.

Most people would not recognize Pinnacle Foods by name, but they own several brands that most Americans would know. They own Armour, Aunt Jemima, Celeste (as in Mama Celeste frozen pizza), Duncan Hines, Hungry-Man Frozen dinners, Lenders Bagels, Log Cabin Syrups, Mrs. Butterworth’s, Mrs. Paul’s, Open Pit, Swanson (“The Original TV Dinner”), Van de Kamp’s, and Vlasic. Of these brands, BHG seems to handle Armour, Duncan Hines, Lenders, Mrs. Butterworth’s, and Vlasic.

The press release that made me realize that no matter how much goodness and improvement I see out in the world there remains, sometimes just out of sight, darkness and general tackiness in abundance. The press release, titled “The Vlasic® Stork is Calling All May Babies!” went on to explain that ‘One May-Born Baby Will Win Big with Vlasic Pickles’. This sounded pretty interesting. I am all for preserved cucumbers and babies and babies winning preserved cucumbers so I continued reading.

Had it been just any stork “Calling All May Babies”, I would have assumed that there was a batch of defective babies (made in China perhaps) being recalled. As a pickle fan, I knew that this stork had nothing to do with the delivery or manufacture of actual babies. As it turns out, Vlasic® is having a contest to find 2008′s “Vlasic Stork Baby”. To enter, a parent must browse over to www.vlasic.com and submit a photo along with 50 to 100 words about why their baby should be the Vlasic Stork Baby, along with the baby’s date of birth, sex, height and weight.

This part was fine. It was only after I got to the prizes that I realized we are screwed. This is what the website and press release say:

The winning baby and family will win: a $20,000 US Savings Bond; a trip for two to New York City — complete with one dinner and one night’s stay — to introduce the official Vlasic® Stork Baby on a New York Morning Show on Friday, June 20th (ARP $3,000), and receive a year’s supply of Vlasic Pickles.

Ok, so, working backwards, we have a years supply of Vlasic Pickles, thats good, right? (As long as they are not all the refrigerated kind – who’d have room for that?). The next bit gets a bit weird. It says a “trip for two to New York City — complete with one dinner and one night’s stay” – based on the rest of the info this is going to be for either the night of June 19th or June 20th, 2008. At this point the winning baby will be at most, seven weeks old. On a plane, to NYC, and out to Dinner. Thats just crazy talk – yet that’s not the real problem.

It’s that first prize item that looks deceptively nice. Who could possibly object to a $20,000 US Savings Bond right? By the time the kid’s ready for college that could pay for a whole semester of classes. if I had stopped reading there, I would have been fine. But the press release went on to a paragraph that comes close to summing up what is wrong with America but the press release calls this an “extra treat”.

To sweeten the pickle even more, Vlasic(R) is offering the family an extra treat! If the parents of the Vlasic(R) Stork Baby want to show their love and dedication to Vlasic(R) Pickles by making his or her middle name “Crunch,” the savings bond value will be increased to $25,000.

The thing is -  people will do this. The contest is only open to “legal U.S. residents 18 years of age or older at the time of entry”. This means its the parents entering the contest, not the baby. If the parent wants to have their middle name legally changed to “Crunch” thats fine. Selling naming rights on your baby – even their middle name – is beyond creepy.

A city selling the naming rights to an arena is one thing. Those rights cost millions or tens of millions of dollars. Selling the “branding” on your child for $25,000 (or $5,000 depending how you look at it) is not the best way to welcome your child into the world.

While walking along the platform I noticed an ad for the Philadelphia Sports Club.  Now, as some of you know, my first real job was not in IT.  I used to work for a market research company so I fully understand what goes into developing a an advertising concept, getting the concept approved, getting the creatives made, securing placements, and rolling out a campaign.  The lead time on some ads are months and months. 

This particular ad is one that should never have been approved.  Politics are too volatile a subject to base an advertising campaign upon in my opinion.  I’m guessing someone was playing the odds and that this campaign was created when Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani were the media’s picks as front runners.  It just goes to show how much can change in a relatively short time.

Photo taken February 10th, 2008

However, I believe that Stern’s fundamental conclusion is justified: We are much better off reducing carbon dioxide emissions substantially than risking the consequences of failing to act, even if, unlike Stern, one heavily discounts uncertainty and the future.

Two factors differentiate global climate change from other environmental problems.

First, whereas most environmental insults — for example, water pollution, acid rain, or sulfur dioxide emissions — are mitigated promptly or in fairly short order when the source is cleaned up, emissions of carbon dioxide and other trace gases remain in the atmosphere for centuries. So reducing emissions today is very valuable to humanity in the distant future.

Second, the externality is truly global in scale, because greenhouse gases travel around the world in a few days. As a result, the nation-state and its subsidiaries, the typical loci for internalizing externalities, are limited in their remedial capacity. (However, since the US contributes about 25 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, its own policy could make a large difference.) Thus, global climate change is a public "good" — as defined in economic terms — on an enormous scale.

Read the Rest

"The people", in the form of the US citizenry that are not running the government or huge corporations, tend to like their science the same way they like their news – in short, catchy, easily (pre)digested form that can be transmitted via AIM with under 200 keystrokes.   As a result, much very well written, well researched, and important work zooms right past people who are more eagerly awaiting news on the status of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s relationship.

The US media is market driven just like Wal*Mart. Wal*Mart knows that it’s customer base doesn’t go there to buy Rolex watches or Pioneer Elite stereo components. As a result, they don’t waste shelf space on those products. The news media is the same way. Forget the editors and owners for a while, and go to MSNBC, New York Times, and CNN and take look at the "Most Viewed" or "Most Popular" list of stories (the items below are as of the evening of November 7th).

At MSNBC it is currently:

• Bedroom lies: Why you should come clean
• Being a little heavy may have some benefits
• Giuliani begins to move beyond Sept. 11
• Afghanistan mourns blast victims; toll hits 41
• Heck, it’s never lupus on ‘House’

CNN:

• Finnish school shooter dead
• Man sheds 87 pounds
• Mom demands answers to son’s death
• McCartney spied with another woman
• Why bad employees don’t get fired

and New York Times:

• Curing Insomnia Without the Pills
• Causes of Death Are Linked to a Person’s Weight
• M.I.T. Sues Frank Gehry, Citing Flaws in Center He Designed
• Maureen Dowd: Mushy: Handsome in Uniform
• Thomas L. Friedman: The Dawn of E2K in India

This is the root of the problem. The news media is in the business to make money. If they are showing visitors what other visitors consider important or worth reading you can be damn sure they are paying attention themselves. They can see that the American news consumer is more interested in self help stories and stories about violence and adultry than they are about serious issues facing the world in general and the US in particular.

NPR.org doesn’t offer a list of the most popular stories on the site but a quick look through the homepage at http://www.npr.org and a drill down into Politics and Society you can find well written and investigated stories that actually explore the problems everyone says they care about. The difference here, of course, is that NPR is NOT a for-profit organization and is responsible to its supporters and standards instead of to stockholders who expect a financial return on their investment.

A look at the BBC News site shows a profile much more like our own NPR site. The most emailed stories there are currently:

• ­UK chooses ‘most ludicrous laws’
• Astronomers discover new planet
• Country profile: Finland
• Tear gas used on Georgia protest
• Argentina bomb warrants approved

Yes, the news media does fall down on the job by not questioning our politicians and policies but they do this with the full cooperation of the average US news consumer. The New York Times really messed up in its pre-Iraq War coverage and suffered no real harm. In fact, their public apologies about their coverage probably sold even more papers and drew more eyes to their website.