It's the economy, stupid...

Recently-dismissed LA Times Editor Jim O'Shea didn't leave without a fight. According to a recent article on washingtonpost.com, O'Shea had a few things to say about the priorities of Publisher David Hiller and Tribune Co.'s new owner:

It is "simply stupid," O'Shea wrote, to consider closing foreign bureaus so the Times can afford to cover the presidential campaign and the Beijing Olympics. As for Tribune Co.'s new owner, real estate financier Sam Zell, O'Shea said, "When Sam Zell understands how asinine the current budgetary system is, he will change it for the better, because he is a smart businessman."

It seems an unsettling mix of differing priorities intermixed with a slew of angry shots at O'Shea's business practices. Hiller had his say in that matter as well, though:

Hiller did not dispute that morale at the Times had taken another serious hit. He said O'Shea's firing "is distracting in the short term, but the L.A. Times has great, resilient people."

My question is, who are these great, reliant people? Are they the staff writers packing their aloe plants and Dilbert paperweights up after the latest round of cutbacks? Or are they the foreign correspondents just informed that their bureau has been cut in favor of following the inevitable buzz of the election or the Beijing Olympics?

As someone still clinging to the hope of employment in this field, I can't help but be frightened that budget cuts are resounding through the profession, and that the situation at the LA Times is just one example in a multitude. Its not just big papers, either. Even the Indianola Record-Herald recently laid off its editor and a staff writer.

The question of ethics in this situation comes in to play when I have to ask why the publishers and owners quickly scribble out the pink slips. Declining readership is impossible to deny, but so is the increase in online interest and the possibility for an untapped market of directed advertising. Why isn't the industry instead inspecting how it can maintain its capitol and its employee base?

To me, a paper without writers is like a restaurant without chefs. Sure, one cook can churn out as much work as a full staff, but you would start to question the quality of the food and the moral of that poor, tired soul. I realize we're far from the point of one lowly staff writer churning out the entirety of the LA Times, but quantity is important when it comes to the news media.

And the winner is...in the interest of time, are the media tripping at the polls?

The American Journalism Review has made a point to note the ill-fated love affair the press has with the polls. When it comes the presidential race, this has not always ended well, even recently, as a recent article notes:

The media's addiction to polls and to predicting the future is obviously not new. Critics have railed against it for years. The compulsion to be ahead of the game even caused the television networks to make the wrong call on the 2000 presidential election.

Consider the race so far. From Hillary's loss in Iowa that had pegged her as dead in the water to the largely-questioned future of McCain after his budget and staff cuts, the media's need to forecast and predict a process that changes so much from day to day and primary to primary seems to just fog over a race that could be much more clearly defined by just reporting the results as they come in, the facts in present tense. So why jump the gun and report figures and opinions that can be so off base and clearly not indicative of the final outcome? It's simple--to feed the media beast.

In the fast-paced world of cable news and the Internet, the pressures are enormous to solve the riddle, right now. Cable has all that time to fill. The Web is the world of instant gratification. Who wants to hear about uncertainties and nuances and shades of gray? And, as the recent unpleasantness reminds us, newspapers — our best newspapers — are hardly immune to the fever.

So where does any sort of ethical dilemma come in to play? I think it would be fair to ask whether or not these journalists are fully serving the public. Are these horserace statistics fair and balanced coverage, or are they merely "crystal ball journalism" at a time when readers would be better served to just get the facts, not a preconceived premonition of what they may be?

Tobacco and PR: Adventures in Deception or Prime PR Case Study?

An article published all the way back in 1994 but posted online by PR Watch.org, "Smoke and Mirrors: How Tobacco and PR Grew up Together," chronicles the side-by-side evolution of the cigarette and PR industries.
It is really no secret to us that tobacco counteracted the negative reports published about its effects. As far back as a Reader's Digest article in 1952 titled "Cancer by the Carton," the industry knew it was in trouble. What may come as a surprise, however, is the role of influential PR trailblazers in dusting of the image of smoking.
As the article points out:

"Edward Bernays, Ivy Lee and John Hill today are legends within the PR profession. Bernays in particular is often referred to as the "father of PR." All three worked on PR for tobacco, pioneering techniques that today remain the PR industry's stock in trade: third party advocacy, subliminal message reinforcement, junk science, phony front groups, advocacy advertising, and buying favorable news reporting with advertising dollars."

The article goes on tell of the continued success of cigarettes especially after capturing the elusive female market. Lucky Strikes and eventually Viginina Slims helped to draw in a body conscious consumer. The industry didn't lose momentum there, moving right on to the impressionable teen market and even switching up tactics and implanting PR when countered by health concerns.
If anything is drawn from the movie "Thank You for Smoking," it is that, while cigarettes are, without a doubt, a health risk attacked constantly from advocacy groups, cancer victims and Capitol Hill pundits, the battle is not as straightforward as it looks. There are those on the other side of the battle- tobacco farmers, factory workers, even, arguably, lung doctors and cancer specialitsts, all who benefit from tobacco's continued sales- and success.
Has Big Tobacco taken part in the most deceptive PR campaign since the dawn of the profession, or are they simply protecting an industry whose health effects are seemingly common knowledge? Who are the winners and losers in this battle? What should their punishment be? Finally, what about free choice?
Tobacco claims a sick amount of lives each year, has been shown to actively seek out youth as consumers, and has fought- arguably with success- to retain a presence in society. While the answers to the above questions are not as clear cut as they seem, tobacco is an important case study. With the explosion of PR and of reasearch into products- from food and medicine to lead-painted toys and tire-imploding cars- there is no doubt that products are in the market today that will harm us, and PR professionals paid to spin the situation.