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?

“It’s not personal.”

That comes from Mike Elrick, one of the reporters who broke the text message story that ended in Kwame Kilpatrick moving from city hall to the county jail.

“It’s business. Just doing my job. No hard feelings on my part,” was how Elrick described his state of mind just days after the former mayor got out of jail.

“Of course, Kwame may not feel that way,” he added.

I attended a talk Friday by the two Detroit Free Press reporters who broke the Kwame Kilpatrick text message story.

Elrick and Jim Schaefer spoke at the Michigan Press Association annual meeting Friday, in a session moderated by Ron Dzwonkowski, an associate editor at the Free Press.

I’m glad I went. There are lots of story lines from the talk. Including a few good nuggets that I can pass along to journalism students in my classes. Here are some highlights:

– First, I was impressed by the two reporters’ professionalism and humble, self-deprecating manner. It was good to see two guys representing our profession so well. There was no gloating or grandstanding. They clearly were proud of what they did - as they should be. But they did a nice job of keeping it in perspective.

– One of the principal messages they left was that good reporting is about building good relationships with sources. And the best way to do that is to always tell the truth. Be upfront and straightforward, both in any promises you give sources and in what you report in the newspaper.

 Even if you report information that is critical of a source, in the long run they and others will respect you if the facts are accurate and fairly presented.

Building good source relationships isn’t just about asking questions. It’s also about getting to know people as human beings.

 ”We talk to people when we don’t want anything, too,” Schaefer noted. 

And both added that it’s okay to give a source a heads-up the day before a critical story.

“At least that way, they can get to the newspaper in the morning before their spouse,” Schaefer said. “They appreciate the gesture.”

– Where and how you approach a source who may have information you want can make a difference.

Elrick and Schaefer often went to public officials’ homes in the evening to ask questions - so the sources wouldn’t have to explain to coworkers or bosses why they were talking to reporters.

“We try to find people in a setting where they are comfortable,” Elrick said.

– Persistence is one of a reporter’s best tools:

“We never take no for an answer,” Elrick said. “We know that more than one person has the information. And we know that people in their heart want to do the right thing. We try to make people understand why it’s in the public’s best interest to give us the information.”

– ”Off the record” conversations with sources are part of investigative reporting. 

Both Elrick and Schaefer said they let sources give them information  
confidentially. But both emphasized that it involves constant negotiation, trying to get as much information “on the record” as possible.

It’s not off the record until both the source and the reporter agree that it is, Elrick said.

 ”You can’t let a source say this is off the record and then just start talking,” he said.

It’s critical that the reporter clarifies exactly what ”off the record” means to both parties. And then, after listening to the information, the reporter should start trying to get as much as possible on the record.

Often, Schaefer said, sources want to be off the record. But when you read back to them what you want to report, they say, “yeh, that’s okay.”

– The other key message from the two reporters was that the Internet has dramatically changed the way they do business.

“People want to read, hear, see the news on a variety of platforms,” Elrick said.

As they reported on the text message story, they usually had at least one and often two or more videographers with them - so there would be video for the Free Press Web site, Freep.com.

They noted that the text message story broke on the Web site the night before it was in the print edition of the Free Press.

The Chicago Tribune, one of America’s greatest and most troubled newspapers, launched an experiment today that make sense.

It may be too little, too late. And it may not address the digital future.

But the Tribune’s move to a tabloid size for its street sale edition is a smart move from a reader’s perspective.

The digital future is upon us, and many people rushing to and from work are getting their news on cell phones. But many commuters in cities like Chicago still want to grab a newspaper to read on the train/bus. And the tabloid size simply is easier to read on the go.

Check it out here. Of course, it’s easy to look good on the eve of an historic event like tomorrow’s inauguration. Just run a big picture of Barack Obama.

But if the Trib’s design staff continues to create a compelling tab cover, combined with the news staff’s reputation for quality journalism, their single copy sales are likely to increase. And that’s the point.

The Tribune, which is in bankruptcy following the crazy escapades of owner Sam Zell, needs a few successes under its belt.

I was dismayed when I first read about the Detroit newspapers’ plans to halt home delivery four days a week.

What kind of a strategy is that? Why would they cut off their most loyal customers - the people who are willing to pay for the paper seven days a week? It doesn’t make sense.

Now, nearly a month later and after some time to think, I can see the wisdom in the move, although I feel sorry for the people of Detroit who are, in effect, the guinea pigs.

As a newspaper editor and/or publisher for most of the last 30 years, I’ve been involved in the ongoing debate over how to save newspapers in the age of the Internet. I’m on the side that thinks it’s possible - perhaps critical to our democratic society - but only with dramatic changes that the newspaper industry has been slow to embrace.

So, here’s what I think is happening in Detroit. I worked for the Gannett Co., which owns the Detroit Free Press, for 25 years. I was a publisher for five of those, attending some of the meetings of the corporate execs who make the big bucks to make the big decisions.

If they are anything, Gannett executives are smart and tough. And they’re willing to do whatever it takes to survive and thrive in the evolving world of Internet dominated media.

They’ve wisely invested in many Web-based initiatives, trying to put their company in a position to succeed.

But part of the problem is that nobody knows what the solution will be. The newspapers industry has boomed for nearly a century using a business model based on subscriptions driving retail and classified revenue. That model is falling apart and no new model has emerged to replace it.

As the revenue slide has escalated, especially in big cities like Detroit, Gannett is getting desperate. Desperate times call for desperate measures

The Christian Science Monitor announced last fall that beginning in April it will drop its daily newspaper and switch to a 24/7 news Web site and a weekly printed news magazine.

It’s a grand experiment that will either propel the Monitor into the new age, or kill it.

Most major daily newspapers aren’t ready yet to take that chance. But Gannett owns 85 daily newspapers, including Port Huron, Battle Creek, Lansing and the Observer & Eccentric and Daily Press and Argus papers in the northwest Detroit suburbs.

It can afford to pick one newspaper and risk its future with an experiment that probably won’t work … but then, nothing else seems to be working, so what the heck.

And if you’re going to pick one city for such an experiment, Detroit seems to be a likely candidate. Its economy is in the worst shape, its  prospects for emerging from the recession are among the worst in the nation, and its football team just lost 16 games.

I think turning your back on your customer base is a mistake. I think the Detroit News (owned by MediaNews Group in a joint operating agreement with Gannett’s Free Press) will fail within a year, and the Free Press will have a slight resurgence when it’s the only game in town. I think Gannett will throw out this experiment and return to seven-day home delivery within two years.

But, of course, I don’t really know any more than anyone else about how the future of newspapers will play out - in Detroit or anywhere else. Predictions are cheap. I don’t know who will win the Super Bowl, either.

The Detroit newspapers may have found just the right model for the future, cutting costs (newsprint is expensive and so is paying someone to deliver the paper) so you can save your franchise.

What I do believe with certainty, however, is that people still have an appetite for news. Some want it delivered to their door step, some want to sit on their sofa at 6 p.m., and some want it 24/7 on the Internet.

Smart news organizations will find a way to give it to them any way they want it.

And if they do it well, the financial model(s) will emerge.

My wife and I watch a lot of holiday movies. Films that would seem bland and vapid other times of the year somehow seem warm and comforting during the days leading up to Christmas.

One recent movie (”The Note”)  was fun because it involved a newspaper reporter who had a scoop being harassed by an unscrupulous TV reporter. Now, I don’t want to suggest that all TV reporters fit the stereotype of an insensitive jerk only interested in a sensational story. But I have bumped into a few over the years.

Anyway, the movie starts with a horrible plane crash, and images of reporters interviewing families of the victims. It’s a scene familiar to journalists at all levels. You can’t be a newspaper or television reporter for long without running into this scenario.

In my view, how you handle interviewing victims and their families is one of the issues that separates good journalists from bad.

 Coincidentally, this topic came up in my Introduction to Journalism class at MCCC within a few days of when we watched “The Note.” This is the Powerpoint slide I used in the class discussion:

As you can see from the slide, I think it’s a journalist’s responsibility to get that interview with bereaved family members - but to get it in a way that is sensitive to the family and focused on the good that can come from it.

I’ve seen so much good come from interviews with victims over the years. I could tell stories for hours. My favorite involves the dramatic increase in organ transplant donors that followed a series of stories on a young man and his heart transplant. Or the changes in state law that followed a series on victims of child abuse. Or the outpouring of support for a family that lost its father to a rare disease.

And, yes, there has been some hurt, too. It’s hard to get one without the other. And I’m ashamed of a couple of situations I’ve been involved with. But I’m proud of the vast majority, because I believe in the rules I mentioned above.

The key is making sure the family knows that it is in control. The reporter is there to listen when they’re ready to talk. No pressure. Just a gentle reminder that people want to hear what they have to say, both to share in their pain and to help if possible. And that telling their story may save someone else’s life or do good in other ways.

 I spend a lot of time in two of my classes at Monroe County Community College talking about credibility in news coverage.

In my beginning journalism class, it’s important for students to learn - right from the get-go - that being accurate and fair is more important than anything else. If readers don’t trust you, why bother.

And in my beginning radio and television class, which is sort of an introduction to mass media, we talk a lot about how the world of broadcast media has morphed into a maelstrom of biased voices trying to outshout each other.  

So I was fascinated by this take on the subject by Judy Muller of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communication. Ms. Muller offers a pointed commentary on the issues we all face while sorting out whom to trust on broadcast news. (Years ago I almost went to USC to get my master’s degree in journalism. it was my second choice; I ended up at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism.)

Here’s how she describes the problem:

“It’s a world in which the mainstream media are in a desperate scramble for ratings and profits, triggering a plunge into the provocative. And what constitutes “news” anyway? Is it Entertainment Tonight or Keith Olbermann or Bill O’Reilly? Is it You Tube?

She laments that it’s no wonder her students are confused. And she adds:

“They find Jon Stewart’s Daily Show more credible than, say, Fox News or MSNBC, and I can’t say I blame them. Parody grounded in substance trumps political prejudice every time.”

We were just talking about the Daily Show in one of my classes this week. Many students do think it’s a better source of news than the network or cable news shows.

As one student said, “I don’t watch the network news. I don’t want to know whether Britney got a haircut.”

So where does that put us, as journalism educators and as news consumers?

On that score, I agree with Ms. Muller, too. She tells her students the best route is to strive to be part of the “credible crowd,” the journalists (and there are still many out there,) who work to be factual and fair, skeptical but not cynical.

“Because when the dust settles in this wild west media shootout, people will still want to know which sources they can trust. At a time when the public’s confidence in the news media is so low, the best solution is to keep the standards high, as well as the wall between reporting and commentary.”

Great advice. I plan to pass it on to my students.

(Thanks to Mom Moments blogger Emilie Mullins for tipping me off to Ms. Muller’s blog).

Two unrelated moments today got me thinking again about MonroeTalks.com.

First, a student stopped me as I walked across campus to ask if I had seen the latest flare-up on MonroeTalks involving Sojourner, a regular poster who revels in controversy.

Then on my semi-regular visit to Poynter Online, a sort of journalism think tank, I ran across a blog post by media analyst Rick Edmonds about Topix.com.

Topix aggregates news - that is, it collects news stories from a variety of sources and packages them for each community in the country.

Check under Monroe and you’ll find a bizarre collection of news, most from Detroit or Toledo Web sites.

None of the news stories are original and there is no effort to be comprehensive. So you end up with an interesting but hardly useful mish-mash of news.

More of Topix’ Web traffic seems to come from the “Talk” section, where site users can comment on anything they choose.

As with MonroeTalks.com, the conversation is varied and sometimes not very civil. Because Topix is owned by respectable newspaper companies - Gannett, Tribune and McClatchy - Edmonds questioned whether the level of uncivility is appropriate. 

He noted that newspapers have been struggling since the advent of user comments to find the balance between unfettered, open dialogue and maintaining tight enough control to satisfy their traditional high ethical standards 

Most readers of this blog probably know that until eight weeks ago I led the team of folks at The Evening News who moderate MonroeTalks.

We spent many hours discussing this very topic. But invariably we decided to err on the side of letting people have their say with as little intervention by the newspaper as possible.

That philosophy was described by Topix creator Chris Tolles as a “culture shift,” according to Edmonds.

That’s exactly what it is.

I don’t pretend to understand why the Internet is the way it is. But users of Web sites like Topix and MonroeTalks are looking for a place to express themselves - without big brother looking over their shoulders.

It was fun checking out MonroeTalks again. I’m still amazed by the depth and diversity of the comments. And yes, some are still lacking in civility.

I’ve been wondering how the presidential debates and the financial crisis are playing here at home.

As in most areas of the country, national issues often are seen in Monroe County through one set or another of personal filters.

If you’re a card-carrying conservative, you see John McCain, Sarah Palin and Wall Street through one set of glasses, and Barack Obama, Joe Biden and the financial world through another.

That’s why the last two presidential elections were so close. A huge percentage of Americans already have their mind made up - based on liberal/conservative biases. The decision is made by a few in the middle.

As I’ve said before, this election has twisted that equation, at least to a degree. Neither candidate fits the traditional mold. This isn’t John Kerry vs. George Bush.

But people I’ve talked to seem to see the first presidential debate - as well as Katie Couric’s interview of Sarah Palin - through those same sets of glasses.

Republicans think McCain won the debate and that Palin did fine in the interview. Democrats think Obama won the debate and that Palin embarassed herself.

The split isn’t as obvious on the financial crisis. Even conservatives - who supported the deregulation of Wall Street - are willing to be thoughtful about the result. And some are willing to recognize that John McCain was among those who advocated less government control of the financial markets.

Many liberals - while anxious to blame Bush and his friends for the mess - also are conflicted over the potential solutions. They recognize this isn’t a liberal/conservative issue; it’s a national crisis that transcends ideology. They’re just as nervous as conservatives about a government takeover of the financial system.

One thing is clear. No one - Republican or Democrat - wants to give $700 billion of taxpayer money to a bunch of banks who got in trouble because they were greedy.

But at the same time, no one wants the national financial system to crash - if that really could happen.

There could be many silver linings. Once we get past the crisis, we may have a more stable financial system, with an appropriate level of government oversight.

And maybe, just maybe, this crisis helped some people see the presidential race in a different light.

Maybe they’ll throw away at least some of their liberal/conservative biases and evaluate the presidential candidates with an open mind.