L.A. Times believes the crap on death of West Coast Rap

The L.A. Times walked itself right into the infamous East/West Coast rap rivalry and got caught in the crossfire. An article on The Smoking Gun revealed that Chuck Philips, a reporter from the Times, reported on the death of (in)famous rapper Tupac Shakur using fabricated documents by a mentally unstable prisoner, thus falsely saying Sean "P. Diddy" Combs was in on the plot.

Though the Times published an article apologizing for is actions, Bob Steele of Poynter Online points out some important questions the situation raises about the Times and the newspaper industry today. Steele writes:

"...let me suggest that much of the attention in that internal review should focus on how the quality control process at the LA Times apparently fell far short."

Here is one of the more compelling questions Steele raises:

"Have recent cutbacks in staffing at the Los Angeles Times and the loss of some veteran editors affected the quality control process on stories like this one? If so, how?"

Could it be that trying to get a better bottom line by cutting the staff of papers like the Times is finally reaching the point where it may cost the newspaper more than they can afford--both in legal fees and in credibility? Could the report on rap that turned out to be crap really point to more serious implications of cutting corners?

Soft and Low: Has CNN failed its viewers?

With the five-year anniversary of the Iraq war upon us, and a death toll that has reached 4,000, media outlets across the world have been marking the event in their own ways. But has each done a good job? That depends on who you ask.

At MediaChannel.org, a post which links back to the famed Huffington Post claims that CNN has gotten it all wrong, most specifically with a report by Jeanne Moos. The article outlines the way coverage was poorly balanced towards those who participated in a recent protest for and against the war, and was short in its entire nature, to allow the network to focus back on more soft news coverage.

So are Media Channel and Huffington Post blowing a lot of hot air--can CNN's lack of coverage really be that poor? And can it really have a longterm effect on the public's knowledge of what is happening in Iraq?

Turns out, there may be a correlation. The article also references a study by the Pew Research Institute that shows the public's knowledge of what is happening in Iraq is not in that great of shape.

An excerpt from the Pew Study shows the media may be to blame:

"The drop in awareness comes as press attention to the war has waned. According to the News Content Index conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, the percentage of news stories devoted to the war has sharply declined since last year, dropping from an average of 15% of the newshole in July to just 3% in February."

There are some important questions to ask of the media here. Certainly, the media is turning a watchful eye and a considerable amount of the newshole to the war as the anniversary serves as a legitimate reminder of what's going on so far away.

Still, is the media covering what's soft--Britney Spears, Anna Nicole, Lilo, even alleged affairs of presidential candidates--and in turn covering up the war that America seems to have forgotten?

Are we, as media consumers, to blame as well? After all, we (maybe not you specifically, but certainly a significant number of readers) turn more and more to blogs, entertainment programming and gossip magazines, and away from legitimate news telling about legitimate events that effect people we know.

From soldiers we grew up with who are now away fighting in the war or politicians with voting records which may effect the longevity or termination of the "war on terror," its easy to point fingers at CNN or Wolf Blitzer, but it really comes down to what our own eyes and ears really want to tune into.

Static on the air as NPR chief resigns.

NPR's Ken Stern is out as The Washington Post Online states, marking yet another ill-fated transition in the struggle between large media organization's inter-company clashes. According to the Post's article, Stern's departure came after his personal views on the station's future were seen as misaligned with the organization's larger goals. As the article states:

People at NPR said, however, that Stern and the organization's 17-member board had clashed repeatedly over several of Stern's initiatives, including NPR's expansion into new media. Those initiatives often riled station managers, who saw them coming at the expense of serving the hundreds of public stations that pay dues annually to NPR.

And, depending on how you view Stern's statement from the same article, the departure was a bit bittersweet, but not all sour grapes:

Yesterday, after his contract was not renewed, Stern said in a statement: "I'm proud of having brought NPR to new heights as one of the greatest journalism organizations in the world. . . . I also take great pride in NPR's financial performance during my tenure, with our financial reserves and endowment growing by over 2,000 percent. I have enormous respect for the management team I assembled and know they will keep NPR on this successful path."

Ethically, what does this mean? Could there be some dissonance between the big dogs at the station and the voices, minds and ideals that represent much of the more personal content on and off the air within NPR? I think the question needs to be asked that, when turmoil erupts within an organization such as the public radio service, should contributors such as Stern be so easily convinced that throwing in the towel is their best bet when their voices are not heard?

While we cannot admit to fully knowing how discussions were played out within the organization, is it not a bit unsettling to know that a voice that spoke up to transition the organization to the seemingly unavoidable realm of new and converged media was all but snuffed out? I guess all we can say to Mr. Stern is farewell, good night...and good luck.