Jon Stewart, Sarah Palin and Press Freedom: On The Minds of Visiting International Journalists

Journalists from around the world have common concerns and curiosity, as three separate gatherings in the past three weeks have reminded me.

Whether they are from China, the Middle East, or Europe, many of our reporting colleagues are wondering when and whether a new business model will be found.  Economic pressures continue to challenge nearly all sectors of the profession.  I even heard some express concerns about reduction among the older ranks of journalists in Africa. Institutional memory and experienced talent is at risk in many places.

If they are from countries like Mexico or Pakistan, they likely continue to have concerns about their safety, since those are among the most dangerous countries in the world for working journalists.

These trips are organized by the U.S. State Department, with the underlying hope of encouraging democracies, emerging and otherwise,  around the world. I've been fortunate to have been included in these discussions relative to my many years as an officer and as president of the National Press Club.

I also found that some journalists share concerns that I hear voiced by members of the American public. Some, including two from Turkey and the Caribbean, expressed fatigue regarding the length of the U.S. presidential campaign. Regarding the election, one journalist suggested that voters have been disappointed in the wake of hopes raised by then-aspiring candidate Obama.  A couple, maybe more, commented in negative terms about Republican Mitt Romney's overseas trip.

Where it went off the tracks recently involved Russian journalists.  One suggested that there essentially has been a cover-up, or at least a wholesale downplaying of the Occupy Wall Street movement.   I tried to explain that it was a top story for many days running, but that it essentially ran out of a storyline, not to mention the movement itself appears to have cooled, perhaps for lack of a central unifying theme and decentralized leadership.  The cold war may be over, but there are persisting tensions running between Moscow and Washington. 

On more upbeat themes, several of the journalists said they enjoy watching "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart, concerned that young people might rely too much on it and less on the news media for their information.  One was curious about speaking fees charged by celebrities and others, asking specifically about Sarah Palin. I did note that the NPC had been unsuccessful in getting Palin to speak at the Club last year.

I even had a question from a journalist from the Middle East asking what happened with Rick Sanchez who used to anchor on CNN.  Most of these journalists look to the U.S. for leadership on the global stage, particularly involving the foremost freedoms we hold dear.

The Olympics Have Shown a Widening Digital Divide

Analog aficionados have squared off versus digital devotees. And a business model hangs in the balance.

Are you a person who doesn't want to know how the Olympics turn out until you can watch it on television? Or do you watch events live during the day on a tablet and perhaps again later at home on the wide screen?

If there's one thing the flow of text and video from the Olympics has demonstrated to us, it is that we're an information society divided.  It is not unlike the way we look at the national political discourse as red vs. blue states. Only in this case, it is those who want their information in real-time vs. those who only want content when it presented on television, even delayed.

Twitter presented a unique opportunity for people who wanted to watch hijacked streams of the opening ceremonies.  NBC opted not to offer online video streams of both the opening and closing ceremonies.  So when Tweets started appearing to point out a live feed (such as from the BBC intended for the British audience), more than just a few folks began watching.  In the end it didn't seem to hurt ratings and NBC now expects to avoid taking a loss on the games. It will be interesting to see if a future decision is made in favor of live feeds domestically in the U.S. for opening and closing ceremonies.When you are paying $1 billion for the rights, it is understandable that an enterprise is looking to manage risk.  The only problem is that enraged viewers can find also find a potentially sympathetic global audience through social media. Check out some of the angry hashtags on Twitter, such as #nbcfail

The bulk of the viewing public appeared to be just fine with watching the delayed telecast, as if it were happening in real time. Better at home on the bigger screen perhaps?

Similarly, it has been clear that some folks don't want to know about the outcome of the competitions ahead of their delayed viewing.  Social media is full of people complaining that they weren't given "spoiler alerts".  In case you don't know, an example of a spoiler alert is a sort of warning given before an important movie plot twist or resolution is revealed, such as in a movie review. This divide has put some news/entertainment organizations in the position of having to decide whether to help keep the "secret", at least with headlines, or strictly hold to tradition in reporting news when it happens uniformly across all platforms. 

It seems like a fair bet that as more "digital natives" and their successors come of age, as we older folks go on to that viewing room in the sky, the proportion of the audience demanding real-time content and information flow will predominate.  It also might be that traditional television and Internet technology will have melded by then anyway, making obsolete the question of whether to force delayed viewings and to withhold information on results.