News Is a Verb [Paperback]

For starters, the corporation has overtaken the newsroom. Along with downsizing, cost cutting and concerns for shareholder value, come certain malaise. Hamill disparages today's "tabloid" journalists, but his complaint covers the entire news corps just as well. I learned recently that one major news magazine now determines whether or not to report a story based on its research costs per page of the expected count. Since the best stories always cost most to produce, this system ensures that the best stories will not be written.

Good old tabloid reporters, he avows, would be appalled at the slovenly way the word "tabloid" is thrown around and at most current practices--what I call "state-of-the-art." Old-timers didn't pay streetwalkers for stories, he notes, or "sniff around the private lives of politicians like agents from the vice squad." On breaking news, they did not "behave like a writhing, snarling, mindless centipede, all legs and Leicas," but rather "found ways to get the story without behaving like thugs or louts."

Old-timers also believed what too many newspaper reporters and publishers have forgotten--that they should act as ombudsmen for the public (my term). They have instead traded that role for consumerism, denying fundamental responsibilities to instead give readers entertainment, "what publishers, in their omniscience, think those readers want."

Without healthy newspapers, Hamill understands, no democracy can function and evolve. He reminds us that 65 reporters died in Indochina to bring us the truth, that reporters have continued to die in wars ever since--in Lebanon, Nicaragua, Bosnia and Peru--"and a lot of other places where hard rain falls." The total is now higher--of course, including 8 reporters in Afghanistan, and Daniel Pearl, murdered in Pakistan because he was Jewish.

But Internet and television relentlessly pull readers away. From 1970 through 1990, U.S. newspaper circulation remained roughly static at 60 million.

One result is a decline in quality of which the reporters, editors and publishers are all too aware. Another is that newspapers start to lose money and die. A third is the promotion of self, celebrity journalism. Newspapers today peddle "the same obsession with big names" as everyone else. I couldn't agree more. Witness the celebrity television and movie stars hired as news anchors by CNN.

Finally comes the loss of reportorial humility. Hamill writes that few reporters are today like David Remnick of the New Yorker, remaining properly humble. Those rare souls "are uninterested in working as hangmen," because their sense of proportion prohibits it. They know they cannot reach as deeply into the secret places of the heart as great fiction. "People lie to themselves as well as others," Hamill writes. "The journalist is always a prisoner of what he or she is told. The truth is always elusive." Without humility, reporters actually believe they can hit the ever-illusive bull's eye.

But the largest casualty is the deflation of journalism's key currency--truth itself. It is defeated by conditions best described in George Orwell's fiction, conditions that have become reality. To reporters today, murderers are not killers, but activists, and terrorism is a cause celebre.

Hamill correctly savages newspapers and their current culture. "Trust is the heart of the matter," he writes.

Too bad more editors and reporters don't trust the mass of readers with the good sense to tell them that they have the most critical story wrong. They trip themselves up on old-fashioned hubris. Alyssa A. Lappen

Today, the opposite is true. With the exception of a few papers, and no television stations, news is based on the idea "comfort the comfortable advertisers, afflict the welfare victims of society." It's called "press release journalism" and reflects the basic reason for the decline of many modern papers, the timidity and fear of editors who limit news coverage to people and events about which press releases are offered. Years ago, I worked beside a reporter who had a big "No guts, no glory" sign above his desk; it took awhile to realize the emphasis of the paper he worked for was "no guts" because any original work might upset powerful friends of the publisher. Readers know "a flawed watchdog is better than no dog at all;" but editors have muzzled the watchdog for fear someone will object to its bark.

I've been an editor at various times from 1968 through 1996; on every occasion the paper gained circulation. Hamill talks about quality, which he doesn't define except to say "it is good stuff." My approach was to emphasize local news and provide commentary with a sharp edge -- scorched earth journalism, one fan called it -- recognizing that we couldn't obtain the kind of quality Hamill stresses.

The secret of good commentary isn't excellence; it's readers who know they have the complete freedom to respond. In many cases, I gave them a prominence equal to my commentary. No one ever agreed with me all of the time, but everyone knew they had a right to reply and their response would not be trivialized. It's the most important element in establishing trust, the willingness to respect readers. Hamill is wonderful at analyzing the past; this is a man who loves newspapers, and is a superb observer of the human condition. His book "Why Sinatra Matters" is a slender classic that offers more insight and understanding of Sinatra and America than any of the mighty and lengthy biographies. He brings the same expertise and passion in his analysis of newspaper failures. This book offers dozens of examples of why papers are dull, dull, dull.

Anyone who's disappointed in the quality of newspapers can sympathize with the faults Hamill outlines. For example, a recent local report of a major fire with damage in the millions of dollars failed to mention the name of the company or their product -- but, it had extensive interviews of bystanders who came to watch the fire. It's what passes for news; bystanders who think the flames were very impressive. In the modern newsroom, it's called ". . . the human touch."

Give me a break. Tell me about the fire, and I'll add my own human touch. I don't need a newspaper telling me that bystanders are impressed by big flames. Give me local news and the right to talk back. That's precisely what Amazon.com does with reader reviews of books -- it gives ordinary people an uncensored forum. It's why Amazon.com is a success; and the opposite attitude is why newspapers are either static or declining.

Hamill points out, "Newspapers emphasize drama and conflict at the expense of analysis." He's two thirds correct; people want facts, not conflict and drama. But, they want facts, not analysis which used to be rare and clearly identified. Readers are smart enough to make up their own minds, provided they get accurate information. What are facts? Briefly, the old reliable "Who, What, Where, When and How."

This is a superb book for analyzing the faults of modern newspapers; but, it falls short on offering solutions. Hamill thinks the fault is centered on absentee owners who don't understand the newsroom; my experience says it is based on "press release" journalism which changed the "watchdog of the community" into a tame "little bark and no bite" puppy.

Hamill is a great writer. He conveys his thoughts in a stimulating yet simple, straightforward manner. He has the talent to "tell it to the Sweeneys" without sacrificing depth.

He reverently tells about the great history of newspapers. Sometimes, this dips to a form of romanticism which detracts from his message. He is best when he sets forth goals for the industry and avoids the rosy-dream context.

I was a bit disappointed that Hamill omitted commenting upon the decline in grammar and spelling in the newspapers. [I found a typographical error in the text.]

The book is a must for newspaper folks and all of us shake our heads over the morning edition.