Newspaper Book Sections Almost Extinct

The Washington Post has decided to stop the print version of Book World, its Sunday stand-alone book review section, opting to shift reviews to inside sections of the paper. The last issue of Book World will appear in a print version on Feb. 15, but will continue to be published online as a separate entity. Occasionally, Book World will appear as a stand-alone print section for special themes like summer reading or children’s books. As one of the last remaining stand-alone book review sections in the country, Book World fell victim to a decline in advertising revenues. While the award-winning staff will remain intact, the pages devoted to book reviews will likely shrink.

After a petition was circulated in an effort to save the section, Marcus Brauchli, executive editor of The Post, justified the move by saying that the paper would experiment with different types of book coverage; for example, one review might cover three books containing a similar subject. Others see this as just one more example of newspapers combining sections and decreasing book coverage.

With the largest remaining Sunday tabloid book section, The New York Times separately sells its acclaimed Book Review to 23,500 subscribers, with an additional 4,200 copies sold in bookstores across the country, thus adding to the paper’s revenues. This might be an option for other papers to follow suit.

So, why cry about a book section that has been left intact online but has been eliminated in print? This move supports statistics that reflect the decline of book reading among younger adults. And the book reviews are still there; you just have to make the effort to go online and find them or hunt them down in the lifestyle section.

As someone who has loved books all her life, I’m not ready to abandon them any time soon. And, I don’t want to do everything online. I have to agree with the idea proposed by Douglas Brinkley, who says, “I think book review sections almost need to get subsidized to keep the intellectual life in America alive.”

Books are to the culture of thoughtful reflection and discourse what roads are to travel; without easy access, our society’s intellectual life is made more difficult and further degraded. The book industry has been hit hard in recent years, and removing separate review sections from newspapers that highlight select books cannot be good for the publishing industry or for authors.

I see the economic difficulties here. But I’m not ready to cuddle up with my laptop while I’m waiting for the doctor, or late at night when I want to get in bed to read. Having a separate print section for book reviews allows me to compare what’s out there for sale far faster than I could online because I can carry the paper with me when I leave the house and have the time to read it. I can take the same section to the bookstore or library, so I don’t forget the names of the books I want. And finally, I just hate to see the already ailing book industry take another hit from a prestigious newspaper in a position to make a difference.

Access Issues a Concern to Government Reporters

The Washington Post reported that news organizations covering the White House are squabbling over access issues for photographers and protocol regarding briefings.  The day after the inauguration, news representatives took exception to the new press secretary's initial decision to issue official White House photographs rather than allowing access to outside photojournalists for specific events.

The controversy stemmed from the denial of access to photojournalists for Obama's do-over oath of office and his first day at work.  Along with still photographers, broadcast cameras were denied access to these events as well.  The story goes on to say that four reporters did witness the oath of office, and an official White House photo was issued instead.  White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the move was upfront and transparent, arguing that a "bigger room" would have been needed to fit in everyone for the ceremony.

The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse refused to distribute White House photos of the new president in the Oval Office in response to this perceived snub.  CBS News' Christopher Isham said that news agencies and the Obama administration were in "an awkward phase," with some bumps to work out.

The article goes on to state that additional objections were raised over why reporters were not allowed to use the names of administration officials giving background briefings.  Finally, the article says that Gibbs never addressed this issue directly.

So, I was wondering how long it would take the press to find fault with the new administration; I just didn't realize it would be this soon.  Yet, this is naive on my part, because these people may be less interested in getting the news out there (I, for one, would have welcomed any photos of President Obama in the Oval Office on his first day) than they are in establishing their turf.  Robert Gibbs has been press secretary for two days, and already, news organizations have implied that he is deceptive, exclusive and ignorant of past protocol.

I realize the importance of allowing outside photojournalists to cover White House events.  Obviously, if this trend continues, I would be the first to cry foul.  But can't the media give Robert Gibbs a break--at least this week?  Poor guy has to be terrified of misrepresenting his boss (the head of the country, military, etc.), as well as issuing potentially objectionable comments of his own!  

After all, the cultural change we're hoping for with President Obama's leadership and example is a new appreciation for civil, "mutually respectful" negotiations between parties with different interests.  It's well recognized that the polarization, which has infected our society, both domestically and in foreign relations, needs to stop.  Why not start at the source--the new White House?

Environmental S.W.A.T. Team

This week, The New York Times will present a radical departure from its format of reporting environmental issues.  Rather than cover different aspects of the topic using various reporters, the newspaper has opted to form an environmental reporting team comprised of eight specialized writers from the areas of science, national, metro, foreign and business. 

The purpose of this new unit is to devote more prominent coverage to a topic that has become increasingly newsworthy in recent years.  The idea is that reporters will bring their own area of expertise to write more "big-thought" environment articles that will make it onto the front page, according to Erica Goode, the new environment editor.

This new approach will employ investigative work and the use of storytelling techniques to decipher a complex, multifaceted topic for the reading public.

The article goes on to say that the Times's arrangement is progressive for its ability to probe into the variety of ways a single environmental issue can affect daily life.  Goode says that a recent story about an ultra-efficient home was an example of a piece that generated tremendous interest while combining information from the areas of science, business, home and lifestyle.

Whether or not this move was a disguised effort to cut costs, I applaud the Times for taking a responsible approach to an issue that many have dismissed as unimportant.  When any issue can be supported by scientific or technological information, it seems to gain credibility in the minds of many readers.  And who better to report on specific statistical information than reporters with expertise in each field?

I think that environmental articles will become more interesting and informative with a group of reporters responsible for content rather than a single source.  If this approach proves to be effective, perhaps newspapers will use it to address the coverage of other pressing subjects.

Do you think the Times was being innovative in coming up with this "group approach" to reporting, or do you think the organization just wanted to consolidate and cut costs?

Networks Keep Anchors Home for Gaza Story

Although the three major networks sent their top news anchors to the Middle East in 2006, ABC, NBC and CBS opted out of sending them to cover Israel's latest conflict with Hamas, reported USA Today in a January 8 article.

While the networks claim that this was an editorial rather than economics decision, it does come at a time when most news divisions are facing cutbacks in their overseas divisions.

According to the article, a story becomes a major event when a top anchor in the field covers it. In years past, all three networks broadcast the evening news from Middle East locations, particularly in 2006 when Israel invaded Lebanon.

News organizations cite an overwhelming number of competing stories right here in the United States, such as the Presidential inauguration and the unstable economy, as reasons for keeping top talent at home rather than sending them overseas.  Network top brass claim that access restrictions to the conflict make coverage, "just not worth it," according to Paul Friedman of CBS News.

The article goes on to discuss that while the networks argue that foreign correspondents have been assigned to cover the conflict in the Middle East, CBS News recently laid off staff in foreign bureaus, including Tel Aviv.  And ABC News has worked out an agreement with the BBC to have their reporters provide news coverage from Iraq, therefore cutting costs.

Call it what you will--editorial or economics--but the decision by the networks to keep the top anchors at home, thus reducing the stature of any Middle East story from major to minor, reflects a growing media trend that allows broadcast budgets to determine what is perceived as top news.

If a major story is defined by the network's chief representative traveling to the source of that story, then we can assume that the decision by network executives to limit this travel has an indirect effect on the perceived importance of the story.

Naturally, there are only so many resources and so much money to cover all the stories out there that seem worthy of being brought to life.  But the worry is that given the costs of competing with other news outlets for viewers' attention, some significant stories may become "too expensive" to cover.

Given the ability of the medium to subtly influence the audience by placement and length of stories, I wonder if selection of future news broadcasts will be driven by professional journalistic considerations of significance or economic expediency.  Will viewers see a reasonably accurate portrayal of what's happening in the world or the world according to the chief financial officer of the network?

What do you think about the decision of the networks to keep their top anchors out of the Middle East?  Do you think the upcoming events in this country and the lack of access to the actual war sites are reasonable excuses for this decision?  Or, do you see economics more severely influencing which stories will be covered and which will not?

Greetings!

Welcome.

I'm testing Robert Blade's blog.