by Shai Sachs, Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 03:17:34 PM EDT
Yesterday, Jeff Jarvis announced that he's been awarded a two-year, $100,000 grant to fund entrepreneurial journalism. Jarvis is a journalism professor at CUNY, and has many years of experience in media and media criticism, having worked at Entertainment Weekly, TV Guide, the Chicago Tribune, and a whole host of other venues. This semester, Jarvis is teaching a course on entrepreneurial journalism; his students design entrepreneurial projects meant to shake up the world of journalism. The $100,000 grant will go to seed some of the top ideas from the class.
Jarvis should be commended for his project on entrepreneurial journalism, and I think this grant soundly affirms the importance of the project. Entrepreneurial journalism attempts to find new ways to make journalism sustainable and relevant in our cultural and economic climate. This idea is incredibly important to the progressive movement. After all, the present crisis in media is really the combination of two troubling trends: one, the increasing militancy of conservatives in bullying and taking over purportedly objective media; and two, the decreasing number of resources devoted to high-quality journalism, partially the result of the media conglomeration of the 1990's. These are monumental problems for progressives, as they immeasurably contribute to the strength of the conservative movement.
Indeed, journalistic entrepreneurialism has a very comfortable home in the progressive movement. Every progressive blog, to some degree or another, is an exercise in journalistic entrepreneurship. Innovative projects like ePluribus Media, Assignment Zero, and Real TV were started by progressives or have goals explicitly focused on spreading progressive ideas through journalism. As interesting as some of these projects are, I suspect that Jarvis's students will come up with still more ground-breaking sustainability mechanisms for full-time journalism, and I'll be very interested to see the results.
For tonight, I'd love to hear about other projects I haven't listed here. What have progressives been doing to create new, sustainable, entrepreneurial ways of doing journalism? Some of the most obvious sustainability mechanisms - volunteer power and donations (ePluribus), crowdsourcing (Assignment Zero) and subscription-based journalism (Real TV) - have already been tried, with varying degrees of success. What other ideas can we drum up?
by RandyMI, Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 12:25:12 PM EDT
When I attended K-12 as a kid, 43% was never a good thing. As a matter of fact, 43% meant a failing grade. However, according to The Hill, 43% is "solid support".
by AdamGreen, Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 04:12:01 PM EDT
Check out this new video from MoveOn, and take the poll...Katie Couric Repeats Bush Talking Points
Strong watchdog journalism is when reporters ask tough questions, dig to the bottom of stories, and report the truth to the public. Lapdog journalism is, well, just see the media coverage in advance of the Iraq war.
If any members of the media are watching this, what do you think of Couric's reporting from Iraq?
by jamess, Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:40:48 PM EDT
Tweety Bird, the cartoon character from Warner Brothers, "had charm and innocence"
Tweety, the squawking Host of MSNBC's Hardball, well he has the same yellow hair, and a similar clownish head.
Though the physical resemblance between between the lovable Cartoon Character and the Media Cheerleader, is striking, the similarities between them end there! Haaah!
[ Like most here, I too, find it bad form to "use a person's physical appearance against them" -- BUT since Matthews frequently resorts to "this Gravitas tactic" in his political commentaries, I figure it's about time he get a dose of his own medicine ...]
by BobbyNYC, Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 11:33:50 AM EDT
A right wing writer based in Virginia filed this story for the Politico today: "Left could push pro-Israel voters to GOP." The story is not labeled as an editorial. Although it's also posted in the IDEAS section of the website which includes other editorials and pieces of analysis, this article is posted on the front page and the byline merely reads "by Jennifer Rubin."
The point is that Rubin's story is being presented as an objective news story, filed at 6:23 AM by one of the Politico's staff writers. It's clearly not and includes a number of inflammatory and frankly ridiculous assertions regarding where the mainstream of the Democratic Party stands on Israel.
Some of the highlights:
-- A small but significant group of overwhelmingly Democratic members of Congress have consistently voted against efforts to support Israel in its continual struggle against terrorists and now an Islamist Hamas government in Gaza. These votes demonstrate that anti-Israel views are a minority in Congress -- but a minority composed primarily of the most left-leaning members of the Democratic Caucus.
-- In 2003, presidential candidate and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean declared in a speech that "it's not our place to take sides" between Israel and the Palestinians, an apparent repudiation of our decades-long special relationship and security obligations with Israel. Dean, now chairman of the Democratic National Committee, was widely criticized for these comments and subsequently argued he did not intend to alter the U.S.-Israel relationship.
-- Meanwhile, the Republican Party has never been more pro-Israel, in part because of the influence of Christian evangelicals who are devoted to Israel and support its battle against terrorists
Here's the BEST part... give me a break...
-- Dan Gerstein, a Democratic consultant and Politico columnist, candidly acknowledged that religious faith, generally higher on the right, accounts for the growing support within the Republican Party, while the "faith vacuum" on the left leaves some on the other side of the aisle less enamored of Israel.
First off, if the Politico wants to be taken seriously as a publication that presents fair and mainstream political views... then they really shouldn't be running this nonsense at all. If they feel like this is a legitimate perspective then at least clearly identify the piece as an editorial.
Here's the article in it's entirety. Enjoy and be outraged.