Following our discussion of religion as it related to the case study, I wanted to expand on my comments, since I went out on a limb on this particular lecture with my own personal beliefs. Religion has become an important part of the public square, but journalists often are uncomfortable knowing how to deal with it.  They are either unacquainted with the evangelical tradition, given the geography of elite media as located elsewhere from the heartland of the evangelical concentration, or they take the often most vocal, fundamentalist view as the prevailing “religious” view–excluding other shades of faith expression.  In part, this is due to the success in recent years of the blending of conservative political ideology with a certain kind of religious belief into what I termed “political fundamentalism” (exemplified by figures like Sarah Palin, and her “speaking for God” vs. “speaking to God”). In short, I would argue that journalists should regard the “intelligent design” movement as distinct from science (as a different realm of explanation and truth claims), and not feel obliged to report a controversy in the science where there is no controversy.  The case story could be given a religious frame, but that frame should not be religion “vs” science, but rather how one particular religious expression (“political fundamentalism”) sees that kind of conflict, while other faith understandings (including those of many scientists and your humble instructor) do not.  Ultimately, it’s the controversy among religious expressions that each believer must navigate for him or herself, including the need to reconcile one’s own faith (or lack of one) with the need to be tolerant of others within a democratic community.

The theory behind a case-oriented class (including in Law and Business Schools) is to be able to see the world through a set of facts, because that is how we encounter real life anyway–first through experience, then through thinking about that experience.  The cases in class represent “stakes in the ground” around which you can begin to accumulate broader issues and understanding.  In my own reading, it’s easy to see countless connections that the news stories suggest to the framework of cases.  In today’s Times, for example, a story about the GOP intraparty feud in New York reminds me of the McCain 2000 primary case.  The gay rights referendum in Maine suggests the case of Alan Rogers and “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”  So, at least that’s the theory for how the course is intended, and I hope you are making some connections for yourself.  Also important is the critical thinking link between claims and evidence, so for an excellent example of the kinds of unsupported claims at the heart of the first assignment, see Nick Kristoff’s column today on “The best health care system in the world” (at least not by a number of standards one could look to for evidence, as reviewed by the columnist).

“That self-aggrandizing delusion may be the single greatest myth in the health care debate. In fact, America’s health care system is worse than Slov—er, oops, more on that later.

The United States ranks 31st in life expectancy (tied with Kuwait and Chile), according to the latest World Health Organization figures. We rank 37th in infant mortality (partly because of many premature births) and 34th in maternal mortality. A child in the United States is two-and-a-half times as likely to die by age 5 as in Singapore or Sweden, and an American woman is 11 times as likely to die in childbirth as a woman in Ireland.“

I argued that, contrary to the pundits, Obama might as well criticize Fox for its news practices, since he will be attacked regardless by its lineup of opinionators.

Support for that, and a good example of claim checking, comes from Media Matters that shows the Fox ratings spike some claimed was a myth.

“I sent Barack Obama, President Obama a fruit basket for all that comments because our ratings are up 20% since he made it.” [Fox News' Bill O'Reilly]

“[R]atings at Fox are through the roof.” [Politico's Mike Allen]

“Every time the president or one of his spokespeople mentions [Glenn] Beck or [Rush] Limbaugh, the latter two enjoy increased ratings and bucks.” [Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker]“

The Obama administration and key Democrats have reached a tentative agreement on a proposed law to provide greater protections to reporters against being fined or imprisoned if they refuse to identify confidential sources.

Over the years, the audiences for the cable news networks have become increasingly split along partisan lines–with the sharpest split among Fox viewers.  MSNBC is split toward Democratic viewers (as is Comedy Central), but CNN is not much less favored by Democratic leaning viewers, according to reporting in today’s Times.

By 2008-9, the network audiences tilted decisively, like Fox’s. CNN viewers were more Democratic by 50.4 percent to 28.7 percent; MSNBC viewers were 53.6 percent to 27.3 percent Democratic; Headline News’ 47.3 percent to 31.4 percent Democratic; CNBC’s 46.9 percent to 32.5 percent Democratic; and Comedy Central’s 47.1 to 28.8 percent Democratic.

The question arises:  is that pattern because CNN is “Democrat friendly”, or has Fox been uniquely successful in luring away the more conservative viewers who would otherwise have watched a more mainstream, quasi-neutral outlet?

The “case” of the administration’s conflict with the Fox News Network continues to get a lot of buzz, not the least of it from Fox itself. As often the case, the Daily Show has the most incisive take on the matter.

Politico, the highly successful political news website, plans to open a local news version in Washington, D.C., hiring a team of 50 journalists at salaries competitive with daily newspapers. Thus, journalism continues to migrate from a daily newspaper format to web-based, specialized topics and perspectives.

A “journalist” with Fox Business News, John Stossell, will speak to advocacy groups opposing Democratic health care reforms. It’s another round of tension between Fox and the administration for the role Fox has played in the political debate.  Stossell, a libertarian for years, was a favorite target of liberal media watchdog groups when he was at ABC because of his opionated approach to news.  The irony here is that the advocacy groups seek him out as a “credible journalist.”  

Greg Sargent, a blogger for the Web site whorunsgov.com, a Wahington Post Company Web site, wrote last week that Mr. Stossel would be effectively working “as a political activist” by attending the forums, and said it “doesn’t seem like great timing” given Fox’s feud with the White House.

Fox and other networks are increasingly built around opinion-based news, but concerning being “credible jouranlists” they can’t have it both ways.

Figures released today show significant reductions in print circulation of major newspapers, but continued increase in website traffic.  As Jim Maroney, of the Dallas Morning News and sometimes visitor to J310, the paper has deliberately trimmed circulation and raised the price of the print edition as a premium product, while emphasizing its digital platform.

James M. Moroney III, publisher of The Morning News, said that the printed newspaper was becoming something of a premium product and that too much attention was paid to circulation figures, considering all that has changed. His paper raised its subscription price this year from $21 a month to $30, two years after adopting a policy that it would not deliver the paper outside a 100-mile radius.

“Everybody keeps telling the newspaper industry to evolve, to change, to become digital,” he said. “And when we do that and grow our audience, people focus on these print circulation numbers. We’ve taken the circulation down very deliberately.”

The reasons for the up to 10 percent decline in circulation over last year are many, but the bottom line remains the same–transition from print to digital forms.

Here’s a short clip from film-maker Robert Greenwald, who has specialized in monitoring Fox News.  Consider it for background for our discussion about the partisan media tomorrow.