The Perspective wrote that the honorarium seemed suspicious:

Is it customary for sitting elected officials to accept such large payments for speaking engagements at colleges? Not for Cory Booker, at least. Just one day prior to his TCNJ appearance, the Newark mayor delivered a strikingly similar lecture at neighboring Rider University. That engagement fee? $0.00.

The Perspective’s staffers couldn’t reach Booker’s office for comment. Commenters on the site are saying the money must have gone to Booker’s nonprofit, Newark Now! and that the Rider appearance was for a campaign event.

This is an interesting issue, but I doubt Booker pocketed the money (or that The College of New Jersey would let him). He’s been scandal-free for so long, and that would be quite a scandal.

(Cross-posted at CampusProgress.org)

A Pew report released last month — just noticed yesterday by the indispensable @NiemanLab — found the median age of a Twitter user to be 31, while the median age of a Facebook user is now 33. Back in May 2008, Facebook’s median age was 26.

Credit: Pew Research Center Publications

Since we are a youth organization that’s always thinking about the best ways to reach our demographic, this shift has big implications for Campus Progress. We use pages and, occasionally, ads to reach young people on Facebook. On Twitter, we’ve got an account as well as lists that categorize our members by the program and department they’re involved in.

Of course, we’ve all seen Twitter accounts belonging to users who signed up only to use the service infrequently or abandon it altogether. (Research indicates that a huge proportion of Twitter users are barely active.) When conducting its survey, Pew asked subjects if they ever use Twitter, but not how often they use it. The real question needs to be: What’s the median age of activeTwitter users compared to to active Facebook users.

I haven’t seen anyone try to quantify Facebook users’ level of activity — leave a comment if you know of such a study — but my totally un-scientific sense is that there tends to be less deviation among Facebook users: Almost everyone I know checks it at least once a day.

So maybe we shouldn’t jump to any conclusions just yet about which service is “better” for reaching young people. If age were all that mattered, MySpace, with a median user age of 26, would be the unquestionable choice for reaching our audience.

As my friend and former professor Eszter Hargittai has written, there are substantial differences in the way people use social networking not just based on their age, but also based on their socioeconomic status, ethnicity and religion. Campaigns and organizations like ours that want to attract a broad audience need to utilize a variety of outreach tactics and social media tools, not just one or two.

(Cross-posted at CampusProgress.org)

The editor, Evan Lisull, was charged with a class one misdemeanor carrying a maximum sentence of six months in jail and a $2,500 fine. He was ultimately able to avoid jail time.

Lisull wrote “chalk is speech” and “freedom of expression” on campus sidewalks. He was expressing opposition to the arrest of his friend, Jacob Miller, a graduate student at UA who chalked during a protest of UA’s budget cuts.

Lisull is editor at large of the CP-sponsored Kosmopolitan Online at Kalamazoo College. He’s written a regular column for UA’s school newspaper, the Arizona Daily Wildcat, and he edits his own blog on campus issues at DesertLamp.com.

See more at the National Student News Service and the Arizona Daily Wildcat.

(Cross-posted at CampusProgress.org)

Rachel Fauber herself!

Amid a scandal at Towson University’s school newspaper, The Towerlight, my summer intern Rachel Fauber won a special election to become editor in chief. Congratulations, Rachel!

The Towerlight’s editorial board selected Rachel after the former editor in chief resigned in the middle of her term. Controversy erupted within and beyond Towson’s campus after that editor published an anonymous sex column encouraging mutual masturbation. (Gasp!)

Gawker made light of the situation, but I (and everyone else at Campus Progress) congratulate the talented, charming Rachel on her promotion. We have no doubt she’ll accomplish great things, and we wish her all the best.

Further reading: Campus Progress’ earlier coverage of the student sex column “movement” put the controversy at The Towerlight into perspective.

(Cross-posted at CampusProgress.org)

Campus Progress holds regular journalism conferences that are open to the public, but this was the first-ever event focused entirely on skills-building. Attendance was open only to writers and editors of our sponsored publications.

Students listen attentively to a lecture from instructor John Kupetz.

Five instructors from Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism led the training, which included sessions on photography and video skills, feature and news writing, and journalism that changed the world.

The instructors’ message was clear: Student journalists need to conduct original reporting, localize their coverage and utilize the web and new media if they want to make a difference on campus and beyond.

Students’ feedback from the weekend was extremely positive. “Motivating, inspiring — I’m ready to make changes to my publication and get cracking! :)” wrote one attendee.

“This was one of the best conferences I’ve been to,” wrote another. “Engaging all the different aspects of journalism really shows how much Campus Progress cares, and that is really inspiring.”

For the new media component of the weekend, students divided into video and photography breakout groups. Each breakout had two and a half hours to capture, edit and publish footage to a web site, either an existing one or a blog they created at the summit.

Instructor Sarahmaria Gomez demonstrates how to use a videocamera for multimedia production.

Here are some of the videos students produced:

A life of protest by Teresa Chung, Michelle Kahn and Nirant Gupta
Hunger strike in front of the White House
Adventures in the park
Story of a street by Brett Shollenberger and Joe Schafer
Flying rats by Kirsten Powers and Nimisha Thakore
D.C. transportation
by Brett Campbell and Heidi Kerr
Crime in DC by David Mazza
Franklin Park by Maria Renteria and Sayeda Fazel
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.: An American tale by Frances Harris and Jenny Housel
The New York Presbyterian Church by Dominique Fong and Rachel Solnick
The people you meet on DC streets by Michael Jarboe and Caroline Peri

And here are some photos taken during the weekend:

By Moiz Khan
By Stephanie Jackson
By Izzy Durham
By Jim Steinberger
By Jack Etheredge
By Violeta Lerma
By Andrew Battista
By Lauren Hashiguchi
By Isaac Mayo
By Joanna Clay
By Elizabeth Deng
By Emily Gerard
By James Wang

Two students, Helga Salinas and Tue Tran, blogged about the conference as well.

Thanks to everyone who attended. My colleagues and I can’t wait to make 2010’s training summit even better!

(Cross-posted at CampusProgress.org)

A column by NPR’s ombudsman defending the network’s refusal to use the word “torture” to describe U.S. interrogation techniques sparked an uproar that shows no sign of ending soon.

NPR currently uses phrases like “enhanced interrogation,” “harsh interrogation” and “techniques that some critics call torture.”

The ombudsman, Alicia Shepard, presents this as a debate between some who want journalists to “take sides” and other, more rational people who believe journalists must be neutral and objective, noting differences and presenting them to the public so that people can make decisions for themselves. Shepard writes:

[T]he role of a news organization is not to choose sides in this or any debate. People have different definitions of torture and different feelings about what constitutes torture. NPR’s job is to give listeners all perspectives, and present the news as detailed as possible and put it in context.

So, to take sides or not to take sides? The problem is that this is a false choice. No journalist behaves as a neutral observer, though a tremendous number see themselves that way. Journalists constantly make subjective decisions — when they decide what to cover, how to cover it, which sources to contact and how much weight to give them in a story, and so much more.

If an NPR reporter were covering the health effects of cigarette smoking, for instance, I doubt he or she would present a story that gave equal time to contradictory arguments from the FDA and from a cigarette manufacturer, then end the story. The same could be said about climate change coverage.

Shepard’s argument is hypocritical in other ways. Glenn Greenwald has noted that mainstream media outlets refusing to call U.S. tactics torture have no compunctions about labeling other governments’ actions as such (or of describing foreigners as “terrorists” or “militants” based on our government’s word alone). Yet these journalists never bother to present the opposing point of view — and in most cases, the torture techniques strikingly resemble ones the United States employs.

In attempting to defend the mainstream media/journalism school conception of the objective reporter, Shepard ties herself in a Guordian knot and presents an argument through which a middle schooler could poke holes. In an interview on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation,” she essentially argues that there is no such thing as objective truth — or if there is, it isn’t her responsibility to do anything about it. By her standard, if a politician says the sky is green, she would no longer be able to report that the sky is blue without presenting it as a debate between two sides, even if one side might be lying:

I think that as a journalist at a reputable, credible news organization, you have to include all sides in the debate. … When there are two sides, or three sides, it becomes a debate. … Whether [a point of view] is intended to dupe people or not, the role of the journalist is to put that information out there.

Later in the show, a caller notes that there’s no nuance as to whether certain acts constitute child abuse or domestic violence, so why is there nuance when describing torture? Here, Shepard is assisted by host Neal Conan, a fellow believer in objective journalism, who says, “There’s no really [sic] other side for child abuse or domestic violence.” So it sounds like child abusers just have to manufacture an “other side” and journalists will cut them some slack and portray it as a debate.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Depending on the type of child abuse, for instance, there often is another side – NAMBLA comes to mind – but something tells me NPR isn’t going to call them for a quote. NPR reporters, like most other journalists, make a reasonable but subjective decision that it would be unnecessary, offensive, ridiculous, etc. to portray this as a debate between two sides.

Still, the institution of mainstream media is insular and irrational enough that a significant portion of its members somehow think they must — and can — check every preconception and opinion at the door when they report a story.

What’s really going on here is a combination of two factors: (1) strong support among much of mainstream journalism for the false tenet of “objectivity,” and (2) an extremely effective campaign by the right against the “liberal media” that has made journalists, who overwhelmingly are personally liberal, feel a deep sense of guilt about their ideology, in turn making them hesitant and terrified to offend conservatives.

As we’re seeing from the despair, regressive thinking and heel-clicking that’s come along with the collapse of newspapers, significant portions of the journalism industry aren’t particularly big on thinking outside the box. The notion of journalistic objectivity set in decades ago and, without much critical thinking about its sensibility, it hasn’t received a strong enough challenge. Nor has the myth that mainstream media is a liberal institution.

The best way to return journalism to reality is to support forward-thinking, innovative journalists and organizations that believe in fairness, not neutrality, and to avoid supporting regressive institutions and organizations that legitimize behavior like torture by using Orwellian phrases like “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Here’s how I intend to begin: The next time NPR hosts a pledge drive, I’m calling in to make my views known about their refusal to call torture what it is. I hope you’ll consider joining me.

Recommended reading: In April, Jay Rosen convincingly argued that there isn’t much of a place for he said/she said reporting in an era of new media.

Earlier: Is this English?, Curious ad

I’ve come to care less and less about Obama’s speeches because of the huge disconnect between his words and actions. Our president talks of turning the page on George W. Bush’s illegal imprisonment programs, all the while authorizing their continuation in Bagram, Afghanistan. He talks of his faith in the American court system, all the while advocating that Congress permit him to indefinitely detain anyone he wants. He talks of leading the most open government in our history, all the while refusing to release photos showing how we treat our prisoners — and even supporting legislation to change the law because it doesn’t permit the secrecy he desires.

The campaign for the White House is over, so it’s time to stop getting excited about rhetoric while ignoring the president’s actions. I’ll celebrate when Israel and the Palestinians make real steps toward peace, when a reformist candidate defeats Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, and when Afghanistan and Pakistan show at least some signs of stabilizing.

Until then, let’s talk about policy and actions to achieve those goals, not words and promises that make us feel good but actually accomplish little.

(Cross-posted at CampusProgress.org)

COMPANY - THREE-MONTH LOW - MAY 11 CLOSE
New York Times $3.50 - $6.81
Gannett $2.00 - $5.35
McClatchy $.40 - $.69
Lee $.40 - $1.65
Media General $1.40 - $3.40
Washington Post $308 - $370
E.W. Scripps $.80 - $1.96
A.H. Belo $.70 - $1.61
Journal Communications $.40 - $1.66

After presenting some disclaimers – “don’t try this at home”! –  Edmonds concludes that well, maybe things are looking up after all.

I think some investors buy into my standard line when asked if there are glimmers of hope for the industry: “the recession will be over sooner or later.” Then advertising may bounce back, strongly in some categories like auto where nervous consumers have postponed purchases.

I hear this sort of logic a lot among old media-types (and, I admit, I used to believe it myself): “Everything will be OK if we can just ride out this storm.”

The problem is that print media’s woes have been brewing for decades. The internet is gaining readers, print is losing them, and newspapers don’t really have any plan to cope. Edmonds and his peers should be arguing the exact opposite: that journalists must ignore this uptick, assume the worst and respond to this recession with major efforts to innovate. Because eventually, there will be another recession, and journalism will need to survive that one, too.

There are several other problems here, some more minor than others: Edmonds’ table compares apples and oranges, since the first stock prices are from different dates during a three-month period; he assumes (wrongly, I’d surmise) that data from the past 90 days are indicative of future performance; and he assumes that rising stock prices suggest the newspaper industry is in better shape than it was 90 days ago (and it may well be, but a company’s health is based on much more than just its stock price).

The point should be that stock prices are irrelevant. A few – maybe most, and maybe even all – of the companies on Edmonds’ list are going to fail if they don’t make sweeping changes. This is no time to take a deep breath and relax.

This ad ran beside today’s NYT story on the future of j-school.

See also: Badly-written Facebook ad