my table at the Molly dinner

Last night was the Molly Dinner for the Texas Observer. I got all decked out, including pink finger and toenails to match my pink canes, and my pink blouse, and went down to the Four Seasons in Austin. Had wonderful conversations, heard horrible tales of unemployed journalists, barely tolerated Ellen Goodman’s screed against new media, and had a ball! Food was so-so, but when we had tornado watches and warnings at the end, I wound up in the lobby talking with the state senators on the education committees, and the highlight of the evening was chatting with Lou Dubose and his wife. Wow!

Interestingly, mine was the only laptop in sight, and I think am the one attendee there who even attempted to live-blog the event. I sat next to much of the Observer staff, and none of them were taking notes of any kind. Lots of journalists in attendance, but I didn’t even see note-pads. Very odd, considering how Netroots Nation last year and SxSW this year were wall-to-wall laptops.

The Molly Awards are given in memory of the wonderful Molly Ivins, one of the smartest and funniest Texans ever, a print journalist and columnist who did "get it" about the reasons why the mainstream media began its decline. She said the following in a 2004 interview:

BuzzFlash: You mention in your introduction that journalism is in a ‘parlous state.’ Tell me what you think is wrong with journalism in general?

Molly Ivins: I am a little grumpy about journalism but I think there is reason for hope. I think we are at the point where the concentration of ownership is really visibly starting to affect the quality of journalism. I know it’s been this way for a while but the only thing new is the degree. And I think it is really starting to tell. It’s not like that when you get bought by some major media corporation. I mean my last paper was sold three times while I worked for it.

I’m not saying that anybody from corporate headquarters calls and says, "Oh, Molly Ivins can’t criticize George W. Bush." No one at that level knows or cares about journalism and what is being said. What’s being done is some bean-counter trains their telescope on their little property down in Texas and says, "Ah! My property down in Texas is not making as much as our property in Kansas City of a similar size. We’ll have to call Texas and tell them to get their quarterly profit margin up."

And ultimately there are only two ways you can squeeze more money out of a newspaper when there is a profit squeeze, as there always is. An old editor of mine used to say that the profits are down from obscene to excessive.

You can squeeze the news hole and literally have less room in the paper for news or you can squeeze the news gathering staff and have less people out there gathering news.

I think the net result is that there is just not as much information in the paper anymore.

BuzzFlash: On a different track, are you familiar with blogs?

Molly Ivins: Yes, and that is where I am optimistic. I think the Internet can potentially have an amazingly positive effect in both journalism and politics.

(Thanks Pellora2 for finding and posting that interview last night.)

None of last night’s speakers get it. Because the Observer and some investigative reporters and columnists are still actually practicing journalism, they have not noticed how many of their colleagues in the industry have become stenographers and abdicated their positions as the fourth estate.

Ellen Goodman was bitter in her criticism of new media, pointing out (correctly) that thoughtful analysis requires reflection and can not be done instantaneously, but completely missing the boat on the purpose of blogs and the H.O.R.N. She stated categorically during her speech that the current political climate does not allow for nuanced analysis on TV, radio or the blogs. Poppycock! Just as we in the H.O.R.N. family know the difference between talk-at radio and conversation radio, all of the bloggers I know allow and encourage comments precisely to foster an exchange of nuanced and thoughtful analysis. Goodman believes that all that happens in new media is opinion-flinging, but it has been my experience that it is much more.

Last night’s speakers, including Goodman, lamented the lay-offs of reporting staff and the closure of news bureaus and full newspapers. However, if any of the blame for that lies at the feet of the new media, perhaps those in the paper and airwaves media need to ask themselves what they’ve been doing wrong. Have they become too close to the various Washington administrations? Did they lose the confidence in readers when they became Bush administration stenographers and Iraq War cheerleaders without asking enough of the tough questions about WMD? Where was the Boston Globe when Emptywheel was investigating the U.S. Attorneys’ scandal? Where is the Washington Post today on Mountaintop Removal Mining? Not with Bob Kincaid reporting on the daily destruction of the planet’s oldest mountain range.

Where was the New York Times editorial board when their own employee was promoting the Iraq War? Where was "old media" when Karl Rove stole the 2004 election for Bush? (Keep looking. You’ll find ‘em at the Bush 2nd Inaugural Balls while Brad Friedman of BradBlog was reporting and Mike Malloy and Randi Rhodes were interviewing him.)

That said, please do check out the work of the 2009 award winners. We need more like them.