News notes

The Detroit newspapers are not being delivered to homes today.

Is this evidence of the fall of newspapers, or a healthy sign of the re-birth of  journalism in America?

Only time will tell.

The idea that newspapers can survive as a new paper/online mix that emphasizes daily news on the Web and a print edition only two or three times a week, is not that far-fetched.

Actually, it fits my personal news reading habits these days. I often skip my daily newspaper and catch up on the news on-line when I have time. The papers sometimes pile up for days.

But two or three times a week, when I do have time, I prefer to curl up with my dead tree version of the news. It has so many advantages over a computer – portability and serendipity being the most obvious.

So while I was initially critical of the experiment by the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News, and also reacted negatively to the announcement by Michigan’s Booth Newspapers of similar plans, I’m now rethinking.

For most American newspapers, I think the move would be premature. As long as people want a daily newspaper delivered to their homes, I think media companies should continue providing it. It seems, at first glance, to be insane for the Detroit and Ann Arbor papers to politely decline to deliver the daily paper, even though tens of thousands are willing to pay for it.

But I understand what they’re aiming at. The status quo isn’t working. Newspaper profitability is declining, exacerbated by the recession.  

News that is timely and important, I’ve usually read online before my printed paper arrives (or I get home to read it). 

Much of the content of the paper isn’t that timely. When I read it three days late, I still enjoy it. I’m glad when I find a good article about progress in treating diabetes, or political turmoil in Africa, or a neighbor with an interesting hobby. I would never read those stories on-line, but I’m drawn to them when I turn the newspaper page.

Since most people are now using both methods – along with TV, radio, cell phones, etc., to get the news - why not search for a better blend of online and print that allows cost cuts but retains the essential ingredient – good journalism.

Of course, one of the problems with this scenerio comes when there is big news on a day the newspaper is not delivering. It was probably inevitable that would happen on the first day of Detroit’s experiment, with the big GM announcement and Michigan State making the Final Four. 

Oh, well. I’m rooting for the Detroit, Ann Arbor and other newspaper experiments. Whether they have the right model or not remains to be seen. It’s not a bad thing that they’re experimenting.

If this approach can save local journalism in Detroit and Ann Arbor – reporters covering the news of government and community – then it’s a good thing.

I’m just glad the Monroe Evening News is still delivered to my doorstep daily. It’s still my decision whether I read the print or online version .

In Detroit, readers no longer have that choice, and Ann Arbor readers will lose that choice this summer.

I’ve been listening to Rush Limbaugh off and on for years, since early in his rise to the top of talk radio.

I agree with some of what he says, disagree with some of it, and get a good laugh almost every time I tune him in.

This week was good for several laughs, as Mr. Limbaugh gained the national stage as never before by first challenging the president to a debate, then saying he hopes Barack Obama fails.

The amazing thing is, the mainstream media actually took him seriously.

As a journalist dedicated to being impartial, I’m interested in what everyone has to say. I don’t feel “informed” until I’ve heard all sides.

In that context, I’ve found Mr. Limbaugh to be a convenient mouthpiece for conservatives. If I wondered where the right wing stood on any particular issue, I could listen to Rush for a day or two and feel confident I had heard that side of the story.

Over the years, he has been amazingly consistent with his message. He’s the classic ideologue. He knows one line, and he knows it well. You can count on him for the company line – conservative style.

In the process, you also can count on him to say some really outrageous things. You can’t tell for sure whether he has his tongue firmly in his cheek. He often doesn’t let on. But if you’re half-way open-minded, that’s where the laughs come in. It’s really funny stuff. 

Of course, when you realize that some of the 14 million people in his radio audience think he’s serious, even when he’s being obnoxious for effect, it’s a little scary.

Bottom line. Mr. Limbaugh is a very talented entertainer. In his speech last week to a conservative conference in Washington, D.C., he told some hilarious jokes. He said some things that made a lot of sense, especially if you’re a conservative. And he said some things that were rude and obnoxious. It was all completely in character. That’s who he is.

The great irony is that – no surprise – the big winner of the week was Rush Limbaugh. His ratings will go up. He got lots of attention. It seems obvious that’s what he lives for.

Of course, the Republican Party was the biggest loser. They’re stuck with even more Americans thinking that Rush Limbaugh is the spokesman for their party. Ouch!

The Democrats didn’t come off much better. They jumped so heavily on the bandwagon they must have broken both axles. Not a pretty sight.

Congratulations to Rush.

Journalism is all about telling both sides of a story.

That’s as it should be. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard one side and been convinced they were right, only to hear the other side and be equally convinced. Often there are third and fourth perspectives, too.

The world isn’t a black and white place; that’s why covering news can be so challenging.

The coverage of Barack Obama’s budget speech last night got me thinking about this. Of course, print and broadcast journalists gave details from the speech. They related the high points of what the president said.

But it seemed like the coverage switched too quickly to what the opposition had to say, turning the story into a “he said, they said,” before readers/viewers had a chance to digest the content of what may turn out to be a very important discussion of the future of our country.

Maybe that’s because reporters assumed everyone had watched or listened to the speech and reaction was more important. 

I think there’s another reason. In the highly polarized state we’ve evolved into over the last couple decades, journalists have been under attack for leaning too far to the left. And they’ve been lambasted particularly in the last year for being too soft on Barack Obama.

So there is a knee-jerk response to make sure they’re getting the conservative response to everything the president says or does.  

Don’t get me wrong. I certainly think the Republican reaction to a presidential speech is an appropriate part of the coverage. It would be wrong not to include it.

But the meat and potatoes of coverage of a major presidential speech should be reporting on and analyzing the details and the nuances – helping  Americans understand what it all means to them.

Instead, it was turned into a political football to be kicked back and forth.

As I read and listen to the coverage of Alex Rodriguez’s steroid use, I find myself wincing at the imprecise and sometimes just plain wrong use of the language.

One radio commentator kept talking about A-Rod’s drug abuse.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think steroids when I hear the term “drug abuse.”

Of course, the term “drugs” isn’t inaccurate. In its widest, generic use, almost anything you can ingest, from aspirin to caffeine, is a drug. But it sure isn’t the word I’d choose to describe what A-Rod and others did during the height of baseball’s steroid era.

Then there’s the term “performance-enhancing substance.”

Okay, that’s not “wrong,” either. But it’s almost as vague. Vitamin C is a performance-enhancing substance, along with protein drinks, Gatorade and granola bars.

Athletes have been searching for the most “performance-enhancing” food supplements since the days of Roman gladiators. There’s a fine line between the healthy, legitimate substances and the unhealthy, unethical ones.

Another term that drives me crazy is “banned substances.” That works in cycling and swimming.  But baseball had not banned the use of steroids and human growth hormones back in 2003 when A-Rod, Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire, among others, apparently were using them.

As in most writing, the best word choices are the most specific. If you’re talking about steroids, then call them steroids. If you’re talking about human growth hormones, then call them that. And quickly explain whether they were illegal or not at the time they were used.

Of course, one of the great ironies surrounding baseball’s now infamous steroids era is that nobody is going to be punished for using steroids or any other substance. But several people are likely to spend time in jail for lying about it.

It’s one of the many unfair facts about life – what you do isn’t as important as when you get caught.

Because Barry Bonds was fingered early in the process, he chose to lie, and now he’s on trial facing jail time because of it. Same with Miguel Tejada, who is facing charges of lying to Congress.

Alex Rodriguez’ steroid use wasn’t discovered until years later, when hindsight makes it obvious that the best option is to tell the truth – only lying in front of a judge or Congress can land you in jail.

They both did the same thing many of the other athletes of their era did – reach for any edge that would make them better. The pitchers were doing it – why do you think so many 88-mph fastballs became 94-mph fastballs. They wanted to compete.

Was it right? Of course not. They knew they were cheating. But it was like being in a classroom taking a test when the teacher left the room and a third of the class began comparing answers. Is it the students’ fault or the teacher’s?

A little of both, I’d say.

Some of the students are going to be punished. What about the teachers?