Mediaboss Marketing

Listen, observe and be patient those were the words Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward said to me when I asked them what their advice would be to a young eager reporter who wants to follow in their footsteps in investigative journalism.

What seems to be three everyday, simple things that not only journalists but every good professional is supposed to be doing have become a real challenge. In an era of immediate information, internet and the rise of social media, we have forgotten the importance of connecting with others, reading their body language, looking them in the eye and treating them as humans.

Obviously, the digitalization of the world has also put the basic practices of journalism in jeopardy. Its easier to text than call and send an email instead of interviewing, we have forgotten that the key in journalism is to show up.

Good reporting takes commitment and time, and accuracy will always be more important than speed.

Investigative journalism did not begin with Watergate. Yet, its firm establishment in American journalism and its gradual proliferation globally can be largely attributed to the scandal. In fact, Watergate has been an inspiration for young journalists around the globe, myself included, to stick to the idea that no matter how unpopular the news media may sometimes be, rigorous and ethical journalism will hold accountable those with power and influence over the rest of us. In other words, good journalism will be the backbone of a healthy democracy.

Woodward and Bernstein remind us that theres no such secret key in investigative journalism. In fact, all journalism should be about knocking on peoples doors and showing up. Becoming an expert on your subject.

The duo became journalism icons when they broke the story of the Watergate break-in in the early 1970s at the Washington Post and exposed the criminal activity and cover-up that led to the impeachment and resignation of then-President Richard Nixon. Their reporting on the story won them each a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 1973.

These legendary reporters not only came to reminisce about Watergate, they reminded us why we should, more than ever, raise the standards in journalism to ensure democracy is protected. 50 years later, with a completely different political landscape, a cultural shift, and a digital world, Bernstein and Woodward still believe that the ultimate solution to keep American democracy safe is to reform journalism.

The Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at FAU hosted Woodward and Bernstein on Feb. 8 for a lecture on journalism in todays democracy. As an aspiring journalist, having them on campus, hearing their advice and having the opportunity to learn from their methodologies was an enlightening experience.

We need to deal with the problem of pomposity in journalism, said Bernstein during the lecture. Anything can be infected, there isnt certainty. People are now only looking for information to reinforce what they believe and it is discouraged because theres no consensus on what good reporting is.

Woodward complemented by explaining that it is crucial to raise the standards of getting information and creating a curatorial consensus about what is good journalism.

We need to go back to the sources: a witness, a participant, the documents owner. We cant continue with going by a rumor. These should be our standard, we wont publish anything that doesnt meet them, said Woodward.

The world has changed and forever will, but the heart of good reporting is still the same. The methodology of getting good stories is the same: knocking on doors, being respectful to the people we talk with, observing and listening, being a critical thinker, staying consistent and always following our instinct.

A lot of doors slammed in our faces but the result was worth it. People are going to say no but its the yeses that count, said Bernstein. People like to tell the truth, there are a lot of deep throats in the world, we just need to give them the opportunity. Listen to them carefully.

Having the opportunity to talk to Woodward and Bernstein reminded me why I decided to pursue journalism in the first place. Their legacy continues to show the real evidence that truth, in fact, matters.

In the face of adversity and critique, its crucial to remember the foundational principles of journalism. As journalists, we are tasked with the formidable job of holding those in power accountablea role that may not win popularity contests but is essential for the health of our society.

Nixons words in the Oval Office on Dec. 14, 1972, serve as a reminder of the mindset were up against: The press is the enemyThe establishment is the enemy. The professors are the enemy. Repeated like a mantra, these words were meant to discredit the very institutions tasked with questioning, analyzing and informing.

It is precisely this adversarial role that underscores the vital importance of journalism. Let us not be deterred by the challenges but instead, be inspired by the courage of those who have stood firm in their quest for truth. Journalisms mission to illuminate the truth and contribute to informed citizenship is more important now than ever.

Sofia De La Espriella is the News Editor for the University Press. Email [emailprotected] or message her on Instagram @sofidelaespriella for information regarding this or other stories.

More here:
COLUMN: No democracy without journalism a lesson from Woodward and Bernstein - University Press

This month Democracy Now! turns 28. Since our very first broadcast in 1996, Democracy Now! has been committed to bringing you the stories, voices and perspectives you won't hear anywhere else. In these times of war, climate chaos and elections, our reporting has never been more important. Can you donate $10 to keep us going strong? Right now a generous donor will DOUBLE your donation, making it twice as valuable. Democracy Now! doesn't accept advertising income, corporate underwriting or government funding. That means we rely on you to make our work possibleand every dollar counts. Please donate today. Thank you so much. -Amy Goodman

This month Democracy Now! turns 28. Since our very first broadcast in 1996, Democracy Now! has been committed to bringing you the stories, voices and perspectives you won't hear anywhere else. In these times of war, climate chaos and elections, our reporting has never been more important. Can you donate $10 to keep us going strong? Right now, a generous donor will DOUBLE your donation, making it twice as valuable. Democracy Now! doesn't accept advertising income, corporate underwriting or government funding. That means we rely on you to make our work possibleand every dollar counts. Please donate today. Thank you so much. -Amy Goodman

We rely on contributions from you, our viewers and listeners to do our work. If you visit us daily or weekly or even just once a month, now is a great time to make your monthly contribution.

Please do your part today.

Continued here:
None of These Candidates Wins Nevada Primary, Beating Nikki Haley - Democracy Now!

The mail piece from United Democracy Project echoes Weiss campaign in slamming Min for his drunk driving arrest last spring. The groups television ad has not been released.

This is the groups first spending foray into a 2024 race. It started the year with more than $40 million cash on hand.

Weiss has benefited from outside help, including a $1 million advertising campaign by EMILYs List, a stalwart Democratic group that boosts women candidates who support abortion rights.

While EMILYs Lists support for Weiss had been telegraphed for months, the intervention by the pro-Israel group was more unexpected.

The Israel-Hamas war, which has become a flashpoint dividing some Democrats, has not been a major point of contention in the contest between Min and Weiss. Neither has called for a cease-fire, which pro-Israel groups strongly oppose. Min and Weiss have made little mention of the issue on social media, save for condemning Hamas in the immediate aftermath of its Oct.7 attack in Israel.

Mins campaign attributed AIPACs opposition to private conversations he had with the groups members and leadership.

Despite State Senator Mins support of Israel, and a broad coalition of endorsements from the Jewish community, a number of Republican donors at AIPAC are upset that he has called for Bibi Netanyahu to be held accountable for the security failures on October 7th and Netanyahus failure of leadership during this crisis. Senator Min does not believe in the annexation of West Bank settlements, he had hoped that a constructive dialogue could be had. It appears they disagreed, said Dan Driscoll, Mins campaign manager, in a statement.

United Democracy Project did not respond to an email seeking comment about its involvement in the race.

Last week, Weiss scored the backing of Pro-Israel America PAC. The groups executive director Samantha Garelick said in a statement that Weiss is committed to defending Americas strategic alliance with Israel and has proven her resolve to fight and address antisemitism in all its forms.

Min has endorsements from much of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus, including its co-chairs: state Sen. Scott Wiener and Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel.

Original post:
A pro-Israel super PAC is wading into the fierce fight for Katie Porter's seat - POLITICO

This year, with a minimum of four elections, some city and town clerks are turning their attention to vote-by-mail applications leaving them little time to do anything elseall year long. "It's insane," one clerk said.

We often hear impassioned pleas to protect the health and spirit of our democracy. Count us among those voices. Its a uniquely trying time for the nations fundamental democratic institutions, including those vital arteries that pump the lifeblood of local democracy through our communities: clerks offices.

Anyone who is truly appreciative of or concerned for American democracy should think of the local town or city clerk. These are the folks who put in the always crucial and too often thankless work to maintain the machinery of our electoral system, from voter and candidate registration to staging and overseeing elections. And over the last several election cycles that machine has seen much more sand thrown in its gears. There was the herculean task of shepherding elections amid a devastating viral pandemic. Then there was a targeted campaign to overwhelm election officials across the country, including Massachusetts clerks, with excessive and frivolous records requests based on a former presidents baseless election-denial conspiracy-mongering that he continues to amplify as the presumptive Republican nominee.

Now, the metaphorical sand in the gears is the product of some very real postcards inundating clerks in city halls and town offices throughout the Berkshires and across the commonwealth. You probably saw the tri-fold white postcards, sent by the Massachusetts secretary of state, in your mailbox a while back. After allowing a vote-by-mail option during the COVID-stricken 2020 election year, Massachusetts made that option permanent in 2022. Now any Bay State voters who want to utilize that option can request mail-in ballots with those postcard applications, which must be sent to every registered voter no less than 60 days before every primary or general election, in accordance with that 2022 law. You can still vote the old-fashioned way, so you dont have to fill out that postcard and forward it to your local clerks office. A lot of people did prefer that option, though, and handling those applications for mailed ballots has become a considerable time-sink for local clerks offices.

Having a vote-by-mail option, like any reasonable and secure way to expand the access and ease of voting, is a good thing. Like early in-person voting, if theres a way to accommodate folks with schedule conflicts, mobility issues or any other reasons that might prevent or dissuade them from standing in line at the polls on Election Day, we ought to pursue it. Given growing apathy and anemic voter participation of late, every reasonable step to encourage democratic participation is worth taking.

Some have concerns about the security of mail-in voting, fears no doubt fanned by Donald Trumps meritless attacks on mail-in votings legitimacy during the 2020 election. Those concerns can be addressed. Anyone concerned with Massachusetts system should educate themselves on how the process works when a clerk receives a mail-in ballot application. In fact, its the rigor of that system that is hamstringing many clerks offices. These applications have to be verified by the workers in those offices, including what Pittsfields assistant clerk of voter registration and elections referred to as problem children, a term for postcards with incomplete or inconsistent information. Thats a process that deserves and requires time, attention and, like all quality public services, money to run and staff operations.

Whether a clerks office gets a few dozen or a few thousand (or more) of these little postcards forwarded to them, thats a big amount of work added to the plates of the folks at the front lines of local democracy. Realistically, for most offices it means having to staff up which can be difficult for city or town halls quickly looking for more workers or room in their limited budgets. Pittsfield City Clerk Michele Benjamin told The Eagle that handling this years rush would not be possible without the help of volunteers. Meanwhile, in Sandisfield, the town clerk is a part-time position because the municipality cant afford to offer the benefits that would come with a full-time position. So Clerk Douglas Miner puts in hours on the weekend days he isnt paid to work in an effort to process all the vote-by-mail applications in time. The town did approve hiring an assistant for him another part-time position but Mr. Miner will continue putting in extra hours.

Im not in this job for the money, he told The Eagle. Neither are the volunteers in the Pittsfield clerks office. Yet if were going to be consistent with the lofty paeans to democracy its so fashionable to pronounce nowadays, we ought to put our money where our democratic values are. Clerks offices clearly need help to keep up with the states admirable efforts to expand voting access. Some municipalities, like Sandisfield, might not have that budgetary flexibility, but the state can and should step in to provide the budgetary backstop to make sure Massachusetts mail-in-voting system does not collapse on the backs of over-worked clerks, which could in turn give a foothold to those opposing sensible efforts to expand voter access and participation. Its not exactly a spend-happy mood on Beacon Hill at the moment, but the sort of help that could make the difference to clerks offices perhaps grants to pay for part-time positions allocated based on applications received would barely register as a rounding error on the states annual budget. Protecting democracy demands more than penny-pinching.

In the meantime, thank your local clerks office workers. Many are working overtime to uphold their end of the bargain. Massachusetts can and should do more to help them meet the challenges.

See the original post here:
Our Opinion: If we want to support democracy, it should include helping overworked clerks - Berkshire Eagle

For the seventh time in eight years, a Palm Beach County legislator is still trying to make it virtually impossible for voters to amend their Constitution.

You have to give Rep. Rick Roth credit for persistence in trying to suppress citizen participation in democracy in Florida.

Back to his old tricks, backed by the same old powerful business groups, Roth wants to increase the threshold from 60% to 67% for passage of a constitutional amendment.

Roths proposal (HJR 335) would impose another giant barrier to direct democracy in Florida, while empowering an even smaller minority of one-third of voters to decide the outcome of a statewide election.

This is a sinister ploy to silence the voices of Floridians in the last place where they still have an impact: at the ballot box.

If Roth had his way, Florida would never have raised the minimum wage in 2020, or restored the right to vote to convicted felons (2018), or demanded fairness in how politicians draw congressional and legislative districts (2010).

All three of those are in the constitution after clearing the 60% hurdle, but none reached the lofty 67% that Roth seeks.

Even the wildly popular Save Our Homes amendment, which since 1992 has capped annual assessment increases on homesteaded property at 3%, would never have become law.

Roths rationalization for the higher threshold rests on the premise that voters arent smart enough to figure out the risks of cluttering up the constitution.

The real purpose of the constitution is to protect citizens from our own government, Roth told members of a House subcommittee this week. So I see raising the bar as making sure that the constitution continues to protect you.

Protect us? From what?

Roths gobbledygook tells us nothing. He further weakened his case by noting that voters approved a legislative amendment in 2018 that requires a supermajority vote of two-thirds in the House and Senate to impose or raise state taxes or fees.

Guess what? That didnt reach the 67% threshold, either. It passed by 65.7%.

Florida is already the nations most difficult state for citizens to attain ballot access, as Rich Templin of the Florida AFL-CIO reminded lawmakers in a hearing on Monday. The voters approved the 60% threshold nearly two decades ago.

A Florida ballot initiative now requires nearly 1 million valid signatures, which is an exhausting and expensive undertaking. The Legislature has repeatedly made it more difficult by shortening the lifespan of valid signatures and prohibiting petition circulators from being paid by the petition. (There have been abuses in the signature-gathering process, but a responsible Legislature would promote civic engagement, not try to destroy it.)

But in a tightly scripted House, where every Republican-sponsored bill that reaches the calendar is assured of passage, Roths fellow Republicans raised no insightful questions and rubber-stamped his bill at its last committee meeting Tuesday.

The party-line vote was 11-6, with the no votes cast by five Democrats joined by Republican Rep. Linda Chaney of St. Pete Beach. The local members of the Ethics, Elections and Open Government subcommittee are all Democrats, and voted no, including Rep. Jennifer Rita Harris, Rep. Lavon Bracy Davis and Rep. Kristen Arrington.

As for Roth, the West Palm Beach grower has never come close to winning 67% approval from voters in an election.

In a conservative, rural district stretching across the northern tier of Palm Beach County, he has won four House races with 58, 55, 56 and 60% of the vote against weak opposition. He never came close to reaching the 67% threshold that he wants to impose on others.

Facing term limits in November, Roth has announced plans to run for a state Senate seat.

Roths raising of the bar for democracy requires approval from three-fifths of the House and Senate. If it reached the ballot it would require 60% approval from voters. That may appear hypocritical, but thats the law in Florida.

The good news is that not one senator has filed the same bill, and the 60-day session will reach the midway point next week, so it appears for now that Roths record of futility will remain intact. But with this Legislature, you can never be sure.

The Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board includes Editor-in-Chief Julie Anderson, Opinion Editor Krys Fluker and Viewpoints Editor Jay Reddick. The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board consists of Editorial Page Editor Steve Bousquet, Deputy Editorial Page Editor Dan Sweeney, editorial writer Martin Dyckman and Anderson. Send letters to insight@orlandosentinel.com.

Continued here:
Editorial: Renewing the annual assault on democracy in Florida - Orlando Sentinel