The Project for Excellence in Journalism, an affiliate of the Pew Research Center, has released its annual report on the health and status of American journalism. It is a comprehensive look at some of the most signifcant measures of the media’s place in contemporary society, including major trends, audience, economics, and ownership. In the overview, they describe the modern press as being slow on the uptake with regard to the changing landscape, and lacking in the vision that will be required of the industry’s leaders:

“The recent history of the news industry is marked by caution and continuity more than innovation. The character of the next era, far from inevitable, will likely depend heavily on the quality of leadership in the newsroom and boardroom. If history is a guide…it will require renegades and risk-takers to break from the conventional path and create new directions.” […and…] “practicing journalism has become far more difficult and demands new vision. Journalism is becoming a smaller part of people’s information mix. The press is no longer gatekeeper over what the public knows.”

I’m inclined to agree. It has been apparrent for some time that the conventional media has been struggling to cobble together an effective response to the rise of the Internet. And their failure to do so is partially the result of not having the foresight to recognize the approaching risk early enough to counter it. Thank goodness for that.

I’ll be reading and digesting the contents of this study over the next few days and commenting on any notable revelations I encounter.

The Radio and Television News Directors Foundation has announced that its 2007 First Amendment Leadership Award has gone to that paragon of fairness and balance, Roger Ailes, chairman and CEO of FOX News. In other news, vampires are devouring the brains of babies across America.

The award is given to “a business or government leader who has made a significant contribution to the protection of the First Amendment and freedom of the press.” So far as I’m able to discern, Ailes earned this recognition because he “made [Fox] the ratings leader among cable news channels.” At least that’s all the press release mentions. In his acceptance speech, Ailes extolled the virtues of the diversity of ideas, a virtue that Fox News honors by always presenting a wide range of opinions – from the right, all the way to the far right:

“The greatest danger to journalism is a newsroom or a profession where everyone thinks alike. Because then one wrong turn can cause an entire news division to implode. We must respect and encourage diversity of thought and speech in the newsroom.”

Just imagine the atomic implosion that’s awaiting Fox News given their maze of wrong turns.

Ailes went on to demonstrate his commitment to diversity with humor that cut across the ideological landscape. There was a joke dismissing global warming; another demeaning the French; a swat at the Clintons’ marriage; and the always hilarious conflation of Osama and Obama.

But it wasn’t all fun and games. Ailes departed from the levity to address a serious and timely matter – the controversy surrounding Fox News and the Democratic candidates’ debate in Nevada:

“Recently pressure groups are forcing candidates to conclude that the best strategy for journalists is divide and conquer, to only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage…If you are afraid of journalists, how will you face the real dangers in the world?”

Since Roger has resolved to be serious, so will I. Nobody is proposing that candidates only appear in venues that give them favorable coverage. They just don’t want to be exploited by venues that are openly antagonistic. And none of Fox’ critics are afraid of journalists. They just refuse to bestow legitimacy on the partisan agents of their opponents.

Congratulations Mr. Ailes, on managing to weasel an award from your buddies in the mainstream media that Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, et al, so often disparage. But don’t expect valentines from the targets of your political bile. And don’t be surprised when guests don’t show up at your televised lynchings.

A little background on the RTNDA: This is an organization whose President, Barbara Cochran, claimed that regulating “video news releases” amounts to government intrusion into the affairs of news broadcasters.

YouTube Video of Ailes at the RTNDF awards gala.

The Libby trial exposed the dark underside of Washington’s press corps and their incestuous relationships with the subjects of their coverage. But Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post has managed to find a sliver of hope for the restoration of the media’s honor:

The one plus for the media in Libby’s conviction involved Tim Russert, NBC’s Washington bureau chief…The jury believed Russert.

I think this requires a conclusionary leap the width of the Grand Canyon. There is no evidence that the jury’s belief in Russert rested on his veracity. It is far more likely that Russert just looked good in comparison to Libby and the weasels that came to his defense. And that’s no small feat considering what we learned about Russert during this trial.

Kathie Martin, Vice-President Dick Cheney’s director of communications, revealed her notes that listed “message control” as a positive reason for having the VP appear on Russert’s Sunday program. She expanded on that in her testimony:

“I suggested we put the vice president on ‘Meet the Press,’ which was a tactic we often used. It’s our best format.”

Russert can hardly be considered a “plus” for the media if the White House considers him a pawn for controlling their message. And since Kurtz characterized him as the “one” plus, by my count the media is back to zero.

This is just for reference and not a concession that the current residents of the White House have any standards:

“In general, a pardon is granted on the basis of the petitioner’s demonstrated good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence. The Department’s regulations require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application (28 C.F.R. § 1.2). In determining whether a particular petitioner should be recommended for a pardon, the following are the principal factors taken into account.”

1. Post-conviction conduct, character, and reputation.
2. Seriousness and relative recentness of the offense.
3. Acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement.
4. Need for relief.
5. Official recommendations and reports.

Of course, the President can decline to take these factors into account and grant a pardon for any reason he chooses. Including to insure the loyalty and continued silence of a former staffer who knows where the bodies are buried.

The right-wing apologists in the press have launched a virtual Pardon-palooza on behalf of their favorite former hill staffer, Scooter Libby. You only have to read to the second paragraph of Howard Kurtz’ column in the Washington Post to understand the level of criminality in the DC press corps:

“When Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff and other top administration officials wanted to neutralize a critic by disclosing his wife’s role at the CIA, they turned to some of the capital’s most prominent chroniclers, who — under longstanding local custom — promised the leakers anonymity.”

Since when is it the role of reporters to accommodate political assassins by publishing their attacks and promising them anonymity? The journalist’s obligation to protect a source was meant to shield whistleblowers who risked retribution from a powerful government that would prefer to keep its wrongdoing secret. It was not meant to shield dirty tricksters within government who want to harm their political rivals.

Now that a jury has convicted Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice, many in the media are still rising to his defense. The arguments trace a perverse logic that insists that, although there never was a leak, Libby wasn’t the leaker. Kate O’Bierne told Chris Matthews that the difference between Bill Clinton’s perjury and Libby’s, was that Clinton confessed. Libby, therefore, should be pardoned because he was convicted against his will (unlike every other felon).

O’Bierne is not the only loose-screwed advocate of a pardon for Libby. Editorials in the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, and the National Review are also pro-impunity.

In the Wall Street Journal’s tortured logic, Libby is only guilty of being too honest:
“…he has been convicted of telling the truth about Mr. Wilson and Ms. Plame to some reporters but then not owning up to it.”

Note to WSJ: “Not owning up” to the FBI and the grand jury is a felony! The Journal also suggests that there would have been no case if only Libby had said that he didn’t recall his conversations with reporters. In other words, the Journal believes Libby’s problem is that he didn’t tell the right lies. Either way, the Journal just made two arguments advocating perjury.

The New York Post headline screams, “Free Scooter Libby.” But they don’t appear to know from what he should be freed:
“Despite the jury’s guilty verdict yesterday on four of five counts, it’s fair to say that Fitzgerald added nothing to what was well known about the question that ostensibly prompted this probe in the first place: Who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson’s name…”

Note to NYP: Perhaps the reason that nothing was added to what was known is that the defendant was lying and obstructing justice – for which he was convicted. This trial was not about who leaked Plame’s name, anyway. It was about Libby lying during the investigation.

The National Review finds new places to point the finger:
“A good man has paid a very heavy price for the Left’s fevers, the media’s scandal-mongering, and President Bush’s failure to unify his own administration.”

Note to NR: A good man would not have lied to investigators; would not have covered up political hit jobs; would not have sabotaged the career of a patriotic CIA operative just to discredit her husband, a political foe. And it wasn’t the left or the media that made him do those things, although it might have been President Bush.

It should come as no surprise that these papers and pundits, who now solicit forgiveness for Libby, have long championed his efforts to slime Joe Wilson and his family. Driven by a desire to justify a disastrous and unnecessary war, they now seek to award their loyal servant a get out of jail free card. My guess would be that he gets it. Because if there’s one thing these people are consistent about, it’s hypocrisy. But if justice is ever truly served, they will be bunking with Libby at Leavenworth.