Beth Knobel

My Colleague, Mike Wallace

2012-04-09T13:29:50-04:00

It's rare to get to know a legend. But I was lucky enough to know Mike Wallace.

Mike and I got acquainted when we worked for CBS News, where I served as Moscow bureau chief until 2006. We also wrote a book together, Heat and Light: Advice for the Next Generation of Journalists.

He could be terrifying. I could barely string two words together the first time Mike called me for help on a story. But it didn't take me long to realize that there was one man for the cameras, and a very different one behind the scenes.

On screen, he was Mike, the grand inquisitor. He was tough, probing, and unyielding. But off screen, he was Mike, the mensch -- kind, funny, and down-to-earth.

At CBS, I got to see the tough Mike in action several times. My favorite was in 2005, when Mike came to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin. Kremlin officials had arranged the interview to commemorate the 60th anniversary of World War II. The day before the interview, Putin's press secretary lunched with us and laid down the rules for the interview: Mike was to ask 20 minutes of questions about how Russia and the United States cooperated during the war, and how they can do great things when they collaborate. Then, if there was any time left, Mike could ask about other things.

"Absolutely," agreed Mike.

But when the interview actually happened the next day, did Mike follow the ground rules? Of course not. Mike asked what Mike wanted to ask. He realized that Putin, not his press secretary, would be the one to really set the rules for the interview.

Mike not only didn't start with World War II, he didn't ask about it until more than two hours into the interview. By then, the press secretary practically had smoke coming out of his ears. And every half hour, when the 60 Minutes cameramen needed to stop for a moment to change tapes, Putin's press secretary would walk up to the president to urge him to end the interview, since Mike wasn't following the rules. But Mike kept asking what he wanted, and Putin kept right on talking. I'm sure Putin knew Mike's reputation, and understood that getting through a Mike Wallace interview intact was a rite of passage.

This story illustrates a lot about Mike. He was fearless. He played by his own rules. And he would ask anyone anything if it got at the truth.

But it's the off-screen Mike that I'll really miss. Getting to work with Mike to try to put his journalistic techniques onto paper was one of the highlights of my life. We tried to load Heat and Light with everything that a high school or college student needs to know to get started as a reporter. Our hope was that it would be adopted by schools and universities that want to turn out the kind of journalists who can do stories worthy of Mike's legacy.

The book is filled with the wisdom gleaned during Mike's magnificent career. But if I had to pick just three points that illustrate the core of Mike's approach to news, it would be these:

• Interviews are a negotiation. Mike understood that while the journalist wants something from the subject, the person giving an interview wants something, too. By tapping into that and creating what Mike called a "co-conspirator," the reporter can get the most out of an interview.

• Prepare, prepare and prepare some more, as Mike always did. The journalist's ability to do homework and really dig into a subject determines whether or not the interview will result in new information coming to light.

• Don't shy away from asking the tough questions... several times, if necessary. That's a journalist's responsibility. And it's what Mike did better than pretty much anybody.

There are so many things about Mike's career that are noteworthy. How he migrated through entertainment, films, Broadway and commercials before settling down in hard news. How he showed incredible bravery in admitting to a problem with depression in the 1980s, helping to bring mental health issues into the forefront. How he dabbled in philanthropy, helping to endow a fellowship program for journalists at University of Michigan, his alma mater.

But more than anything, Mike's real legacy is his penchant for hard-hitting journalism -- journalism that is tough, but fair. Those of us who try to serve the world with our journalism would do well to emulate Mike Wallace, today and every day.

Fordham Professor Beth Knobel and Mike Wallace published Heat and Light: Advice for the Next Generation of Journalists in 2010. More information at www.heatandlight.org.

What You May Not Have Heard About Putin's Election

2012-03-07T16:30:38-05:00

It's good to speak Russian.

My knowledge of the language, picked up in nearly 15 years working in Moscow as a journalist, really comes in handy during those times when Russia is in the news. Like now.

There's been plenty written about the re-election of Vladimir Putin. But here are a few interesting things I've picked up in Russian that you might not have heard elsewhere:

***

The latest theory circling the Internet is that Putin wasn't really crying when he left the Kremlin Sunday night to declare victory, but that the head of his election campaign -- Russian film director Stanislav Govorukhin -- decided to make Putin appear teary eyed with an old Soviet film trick: smelling salts. Some bloggers write that Govorukhin put smelling salts into the collar of Putin's coat, where one side is clearly sticking up. They say that when Putin turned his head to look over the crowd, he drew a breath right were the smelling salts were located, making the tears appear. I'm not saying this is true -- I'm saying this is going around the Russia blogosphere. Putin's blaming his tears on the wind, but Russians are also noting that President Dmitri Medvedev, who was standing with Putin, didn't cry at all.

And in Putin's brief remarks to the crowd, he used the word "honest" to describe the elections twice, and "clean" once. These are not words that politicians tend to use in victory speeches.

***

And speaking of the Putin rally, there is a fascinating 10-minute long video going around made by two young journalists from the Russian weekly newspaper Bolshoi Gorod (or Big City). The two interview people walking towards the Kremlin a few hours before the pro-Putin victory rally, and inside a giant holding area where the pro-Putin force was being organized. The journalists show pretty convincingly that the people there were being paid, and only there either for the money or because they were bused in by their employers. Very few said anything about liking Putin. In fact, many didn't even know what they were there to do--they had just signed up with sites like Massovik.ru, (which bills itself as a site for making extra money on shoots and "promo-actions.")

***

The vote totals are in for the Russians who voted in the United States. Billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov got nearly twice as many votes as Vladimir Putin did.

The official election results show that the Russians living in the U.S. cast 5,857 votes for Prokhorov and 3,349 for Putin. For those of you keeping score, these are voting precincts 5235 (San Francisco), 5233 (New York), 5231 (Washington, DC), 5367 (Seattle), and 5364 (Houston).

(The results are only in Russian, but you can click here to see the full foreign vote. Line 19 shows the total for Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Line 20 for Gennady Zyuganov, Line 21 for Sergei Mironov, Line 22 for Mikhail Prokhorov and Line 23 for Vladimir Putin.)

Russian officials in the U.S. seem to have done an excellent job organizing and conducting the election, setting up polling stations not only at their embassy and consulates, but in many areas with significant Russian populations like Boston and, of course, Brighton Beach.

***

One of the most surprising things was seeing Mrs. Putin show up to vote. As far as I can tell, Lyudmila Putin hadn't been seen in public with her husband since mid-2010, when they sat down together to be interviewed for the census -- an event shown on Russian television.

For the past two years, Lyudmila has been AWOL during some occasions when she had traditionally appeared with her husband. For instance, President Medvedev always shows up at Moscow's main cathedral for midnight mass on Orthodox Christmas with his wife, Svetlana. The nationally televised ceremony cuts to the Medvedevs often, showing them crossing themselves and looking pensive amid the grandeur of the cathedral. The Putins used to be there too, but for the past two years, Vladimir Putin has attended mass in a small, humble church outside of Moscow. There have been dozens of parishioners with him, but no Lyudmila. Not this past Christmas, nor the one before.

Russia has been rife with rumors about Mrs. Putin's whereabouts. The most common was that she had gone off to live in a nunnery after being all but discarded by her husband. I'm not making that up. Nunnery or not, Mrs. Putin was back to vote on Sunday, although truth be told, she had noticeably gained weight since being interviewed by the census taker.

***

The protestors were back out on Monday, and there will be more protests over the next few weeks. But aside from a few places like the Chechen polling station that had more people vote than were registered, there wasn't falsification on a mass scale this time. It was more like a finger pressing a little on the scale, to make sure Putin got well over the 50 percent barrier to avoid a runoff.

People are angry, but some are already resigned to six more years of Putin. It reminds me of the old Russian saying: "We hoped things would be better, but they turned out like always."

Beth Knobel worked as a reporter in Moscow from 1992-2006. She is the co-author with her CBS News colleague Mike Wallace of Heat and Light: Advice for the Next Generation of Journalists, a guidebook for young reporters.

Lessons From Threlkeld

2012-01-20T11:42:08-05:00

He wasn't famous. But if you're over the age of 40, you'd probably know Richard Threlkeld's face if you saw it.

Threlkeld spent more than 30 years as a correspondent and anchor for CBS and ABC News, reporting from all over the world -- from the foxholes of Vietnam to the villages of post-Soviet Russia.

But Threlkeld was well-known to his colleague and competitors, not only for being a first-rate reporter, but for being one of the best writers to ever grace a television screen. He was also a gracious and well-balanced person in a business known for its egomaniacs.

And that's why those who knew him are mourning his loss. Dick was killed in a traffic accident on Long Island on January 13th. He was 74.

I had the good fortune to work as Threlkeld's producer for a year at CBS News in Moscow. It was Dick's last assignment before retiring, and my first job in network television.

I lucked out. Dick was gracious about teaching me about the news business... and about life. Here's just some of what he taught me:

Lesson one: Reporters shouldn't be highfalutin. Dick realized you could tell any story, even a complicated one, by just keeping the story line simple. The words he chose weren't ever fancy, but he strung them together like no one else in the business. I still use Threlkeld's stories as examples in the journalism courses I teach at Fordham University. His writing remains superior.

The CBS News website has just one of Dick's stories online, which you can see here, and it's well worth a look. I hope they'll add more.

Lesson two: TV reports should always end with a punch line. Not only are Threlkeld's stories structurally perfect, but Dick always ended with a brilliant and memorable line -- powerful like the last line of a joke. More than a decade after we worked together, I can still remember the last lines of his reports, which shows how good they were.

For instance, Dick did a story in 1997 about the arrival of high fashion in Russia, with runway video from Moscow's first Fashion Week. But Dick noted that even people who could afford designer duds wouldn't have a place to put them, as Soviets apartments were built with wardrobes instead of walk-ins. "Today, clothes. Tomorrow, closets," Dick predicted at the end. What a hoot!

And he used the same technique in some of his stand-ups, too. For instance, we did a story in 1998 about St. Basil's Cathedral, the onion domed church on Red Square, and how it was aching for a paint job. Dick had a piece to camera in the middle of the piece about Czar Ivan the Terrible, who commissioned the cathedral to commemorate his army's victory over the Tatars. "Legend has it that onion domes represent the heads of the Tatar chieftains, and that Ivan blinded his architects so they'd never again build anything so beautiful," explained Threlkeld. "No wonder they called him Ivan the Terrible!" The only thing missing was the rim shot.

Lesson three: Reporters, it's not about you. Dick succeeded as a journalist because he never let it go to his head. He understood that news is really about the people involved in the story -- NOT the journalist.

Lesson four: Journalists should never be lazy. I remember my first press conference with Dick -- covering maverick businessman Steve Fossett, who was trying to circle the globe by balloon and crash-landed in southern Russia. When Fossett met the press, Dick got there early, took the middle seat in the front row, planted his cameraman next to him so that he'd have the exact perfect angle, and made it almost impossible for Fossett to call on anyone else first. Dick got exactly what he needed before some people had even arrived.

Lesson five: Journalists need to make sure they're right. Dick would never report something without being damned sure that it was correct. I'm sure he was appalled by the rumor, gossip and opinion that passes for reporting these days. And he'd do just about anything to make sure his reporting was accurate. I remember late one night, some news broke, making a report we'd just finished out-of-date. When I called Dick to ask him to come back to the bureau to re-do the piece, I expected him to act like a prima donna and complain about having to return to work at 1 in the morning. Instead, Dick said he was happy that I called, because he would have hated having something go out on the air that was wrong.

Lesson six: Everyone should know when to quit. Dick was in his early 60s when he retired, though people at CBS News urged him to stay on. After all, Dick's CBS colleague Mike Wallace worked until he was 89, and Andy Rooney worked into his 90s. But Threlkeld said he wanted to get out of the business while he still had time to enjoy his life. Looking back now, that looks like an incredibly wise decision.

Beth Knobel is co-author with her former CBS News colleague Mike Wallace of 'Heat and Light: Advice for the Next Generation of Journalists' (Three Rivers Press, 2010).

Putin's Running. What a Surprise... Not!

2011-09-25T21:40:25-04:00

The news that Vladimir Putin will seek a new term as Russian president is about as surprising as Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi announcing that she's going for another round of spray tanning.

Russia's current President, Dmitri Medvedev, made the long-awaited announcement on Saturday, ending months of nervous speculation about how the ruling tandem would decide to rule Russia.

Ever since Putin gave up his office in 2008 because he had served the maximum two terms allowed by the Russian constitution, Russians have been saying that he'd be back. And as usual, Russian folk wisdom has turned out to be right.

Russia's presidential rules are different than ours, don't forget. In America, a president gets two terms, period. In Russia, you can serve two terms and then run again after taking a break.

There was simply no way that Putin would pass on being president in 2014, when the Winter Olympics will be held in the southern Russian city of Sochi. And the soccer World Cup will be played in Russia in 2018, which is another must-host event for Putin.

Though Putin and Medvedev have been holding off on an announcement for months, anyone watching Russian television closely this summer could have seen it coming. The amount of airtime for Putin has been slowly rising, as government spinmakers started to prepare the people for the big announcement.

It's actually good that the succession plan has been announced now, and not after the country's parliamentary elections in December, as had been the plan. The country's governmental structures have slowed down considerably in the past few months, because bureaucrats weren't sure if they would be keeping their jobs or not. Now, officialdom can go back to business as usual.

Russia's governors have been particularly handcuffed as they've waited to see whether Putin or Medvedev would be the candidate for president. They're the ones with primary responsibility for turning out the vote, and it's been impossible for them to start without knowing to whom they'd need to give their patronage.

There were some influential people in Russia and abroad pulling for Medvedev to keep his job. Vice President Biden made it fairly clear during a March 2011 visit to Moscow that the Obama administration would prefer that Medvedev stick around. US officials seemed to be encouraged by comments Medvedev has made about the importance of the rule of law, even if he hasn't made it happen.

But Medvedev was always Putin's junior partner. And this just proves it.

The reaction to the news back in Russia has been mixed. Putin's still very popular with older and rural Russians, and plenty of them will be happy to vote for him.

But not so for many younger Russians, who see this as a return to the Soviet tradition of leaders for life. Just hours after the announcement, a cartoon starting recirculating on Facebook showing what looks like a weary 75-year-old Putin, wearing Leonid Brezhnev's favorite outfit: a military uniform with lots and lots of medals. Another cartoon shows Medvedev flashing a victory sign... from a little chest pocket on Putin's jacket.

After Medvedev announced that Putin would run for president, Putin responded by saying he wants Medvedev to be his prime minister. And that's a tandem that could last for many years to come, now that the Russians changed their constitution to extend the Russian president's term to six years from four.

That means that when Putin gets elected in March (notice, I didn't say "if"), his first term will go to 2018 and second term to 2024. If Putin makes it through two more terms, he would be just 71. At that point, he could either retire or potentially become Prime Minister again -- though I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have had enough of running Russia by then.

An important thing to note about the coming changes is that everything happening is totally legal. Putin and Medvedev are playing completely by the rules of Russian democracy...they're just rules they wrote themselves.

And that means there's not a whole lot that America can do about this, except to prepare to meet with President Putin at summit meetings for a long, long time.

Beth Knobel, who spent 14 years living and working in Russia, is co-author with her CBS News colleague Mike Wallace of a guidebook for young reporters -- Heat and Light: Advice for the Next Generation of Journalists.

Prof to Freshmen: Advice for Starting College

2011-09-01T15:25:41-04:00

What would I tell university freshmen starting their studies? What's the best way to get through college?

I just gave the Convocation address to our freshmen at Fordham College at Rose Hill, in New York, where I teach. Here's a small part of what I said... words of wisdom that I hope will be useful to all Huffington Post readers who are just starting their college careers:

I know that some new college students look at us professors and get a little intimidated. Others think that we're a bunch of out-of-touch dinosaurs from the 20th century. But in fact, we're actually quite accessible, helpful and even normal. Most of us still listen to rock and roll, most waste as much time as our students do on Facebook, and some of us are even...Gleeks.

And we professors all remember what it's like to be a college student. You will find that we can relate to you students and the experiences you're facing. In fact, most of us would love to change places with you, to get to soak up knowledge full time for four years.

No matter where you are beginning your studies, there are definitely some things that you can do to make your college experience all it can be.

It all boils down to one, simple idea: take responsibility.

Take responsibility for your own education. High school is over. Now, your education is up to you. Make the most of your time at college; don't just float from course to course. There are so very many great things to study that it's hard to decide, so choose wisely. Taking a course because you're interested in the subject is good. Taking a course because that cute neighbor from downstairs is taking it is not. Use your time to find subjects that you are passionate about, and once you do, get into them. Find your bliss.

Take responsibility for being a good student. Work hard. Secret: we professors hate it when students don't take their studies here seriously, because that's the core of what you're at college to do. And don't blow off classes. You're paying too much, and this time in your life is far too precious to waste.

Take responsibility for making the most of the city where your college is located. Campus may be beautiful, but get off it from time to time, especially if you're in a big city.

Be responsible to your friends and classmates. Many of the people in your class will be your friends for life. Social networking means that you will be interconnected forever, for better and for worse. So ask yourself what you want to be known for...then be it. I'd suggest that you be known for intelligence, diligence, sincerity and compassion rather than for getting drunk or flunking out.

And, this is important...be responsible for your friends and classmates. You need to watch out for each other. College can be a very difficult time, and it's a lot easier to get through when someone has your back. So if you see someone who's not quite themselves, reach out to them. And if that's not working, or you're feeling down, then reach out to a Resident Assistant or a professor or a member of your college's staff. As the slogan goes, "If you see something, say something."

Remember that professors are part of your community, too. Don't leave college without having established meaningful relationships with at least one or two of us. Take the initiative and come to office hours. We don't bite.

Lastly, take responsibility for your spiritual life. Don't shy way from using your college years to consider why we are here on earth and what you're meant to do. I personally believe that we're all here to make the world a better place in whatever way we can. College is a deeply appropriate time to start asking the big questions about life.

I can honestly say that I love the university where I teach. I love that we give our students a great education. I love it that people are proud to say they went there. And most of all, I love that we teach our students to be bothered... to care about the problems and injustice in the world, and determined to be part of the solution.

And that's what college is really all about.

Beth Knobel is co-author with her CBS News colleague Mike Wallace of Heat and Light: Advice for the Next Generation of Journalists, a guidebook for aspiring reporters.

Covering the Coup: Looking Back 20 Years

2011-08-21T17:36:59-04:00

Twenty years ago today, I was a summer intern in the Moscow Bureau of NBC News. I'd been living in Russia that summer, working on my doctoral dissertation about Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his use of the press.

I'd awakened along with the rest of the Soviet Union on the morning of August 19th, 1991 to find Swan Lake playing on every channel. Clearly, something was wrong. Very wrong. I ran to the NBC office, where I learned about the coup that was trying to overthrow Gorbachev and return the nation to hardline Communism.

The next three days changed the course of the Soviet Union and, with it, the world.

There are a few things that people who have been writing this week about the 20th anniversary of that failed coup have forgotten. One of them is that Moscow was almost devoid of journalists at the time. There had been a summit meeting earlier that month in Moscow between Gorbachev and then-president George H.W. Bush. The summit had taken a long time to arrange, and so few journalists based in Russia were allowed to take a summer vacation until the summit ended during the first week of August. After the summit, people bolted... and most weren't back in Russia when what's called "the putsch" in Russian started on August 19th.

Moreover, when the coup happened, there was a hurricane hitting the east coast of the United States. Flights were cancelled, meaning that news organizations either had to send in people from Europe, or wait for the storm to end. What it meant is that the skeleton staffs still in Moscow had to do their best to cover the events, working round-the-clock for three days until the coup collapsed. The situation felt overwhelming at times, as rumors circled that the plotters were about to attack the unarmed crowds outside the center of the resistance, the Russian "White House," at any minute.

Another thing that's been forgotten was the state of general paralysis that happened during those three long days. One of my jobs at NBC News was to try to get Soviet politicians to come in to give interviews about what was happening. But almost no one was willing. Everyone seemed to be waiting to see if the coup would succeed or fail before taking a stand or saying anything that might backfire later. It was a clear sign that the coup plotters had very limited support... as did Gorbachev.

I also remember the incredible organization at the White House. Camped out around the building, men had used their military experience to build barricades, organize multiple rings of defense, and build stocks of food and water. They had also devised plans for repelling a military attack on the building, which they thought could be coming at any moment. And yet despite the stress, the mood of the crowd was jubilant, because people were so proud that they were actually doing something to stand up to power. The crowd was incredibly diverse -- grandmothers sat with teenagers, sharing their food and their dreams in a brave act of non-violent protest.

But what stays with me the most about those days was the sense of empowerment and optimism that followed the end of the coup. In the weeks that followed, national pride was incredibly high. Everyday people thought that Russia and the other republics would grow to be great nations, with democracy and freedom for all. People looked toward the future with happy anticipation. The mood was manic, but joyful.

And that's why this anniversary is rather sad for me. Many of the Russians and other Soviet citizens I know feel disappointed in their countries today. They hate the ever-present corruption. They feel like their leaders are out of touch. And many of them are struggling to keep their heads above water as prices for just about everything keep rising dramatically. The oligarchs may feel optimistic, but not so the people I know in the middle class and below.

Of course, it takes more than 20 years to establish a truly healthy democracy, especially in countries like Russia that are large and complex. But I think that a lot of those Soviets who put their lives on the line 20 years ago today hoped that this far out from their struggle, more of the post-Soviet promise would be fulfilled.

Yes, from Tallinn to Tashkent, the stores are full, people are able to travel at will, and free enterprise has blossomed. But the feeling of optimism, the most precious thing of all, has been eaten away by heavy-handed political systems and economic challenges. And 20 years ago, I would have never predicted that.

Scott Pelley: In His Own Words

2011-05-03T14:26:06-04:00

In June 2009, I had the honor of interviewing Scott Pelley for the book I co-wrote with 60 Minutes legend Mike Wallace, Heat and Light: Advice for the Next Generation of Journalists.

Despite his busy schedule, Scott graciously talked with me for nearly two hours about his career, his ever-present coffee cup in hand. Some of the very best advice for young reporters in our book comes from him.

Rather than repeat what's already in print, now seems like the time to share parts of the interview that didn't make it into our book, to shed some new fresh light on what kind of anchorman people can expect Pelley to be. My own impression after our talk, and after working with him just a little at CBS News, is that Pelley is exceedingly humble, deeply committed to serious journalism, and unabashed in his belief that good reporting can change the world.

And that bodes well for his stint in the anchor chair. Here's why:

One: Pelley learned journalism from the bottom up, and got where he is today thanks not only to raw talent, but to relentless hard work. His compassion will shape his work.

Pelley's own words: "No one ever wanted to hire me. Ever. I've never been recruited anywhere. I have beat my head against every wall, at every place that I worked."

"I was 15 years old when I got a job as a copy boy at the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, which was the 90,000 daily paper in Lubbock, Texas. I had to lie about my age -- they only hired kids who were 16. I was only 15, and my mom used to have to drop me off two blocks from the paper so I could walk there, so that people wouldn't see that I wasn't driving."

"I was too dumb to know that I couldn't be a 60 Minutes correspondent. Nobody ever sat me down in Lubbock and explained to me that my dreams and aspirations were unreasonable. And so I just blundered ahead."

Two: Pelley understands the importance of having a vibrant news organization that does difficult but important reports. He has travelled all over the world doing tough stories, often in dangerous places. I predict there will be less fluff on Pelley's Evening News and more of the hard news that really matters.

Pelley's own words: His most memorable reports are "Stories in which we take this very powerful tool of 60 Minutes and we shine a light on something that others want hidden."

"One of the examples of that, of course, is Darfur. When we went to Darfur on one of the two journeys that we made there, the Sudanese government had shut down that province and had shut down the border, and was aggressively arresting people and throwing out NGOs because they were murdering hundreds of thousands of people and causing millions to flee their homes -- they didn't want anybody to see that.

"When we were there, we were able to work with an armed rebel group to put together our own armed reconnaissance into Darfur, and we were able to get to a village that had been wiped out by the government forces and burned to the ground. This was the thing that the government didn't want anyone to see, and to be able to go there and see that and bring it to a mass audience and expose what was going on behind this sort of an iron curtain, if you will, that the government had thrown up around Darfur was very gratifying. If we are able to expose an injustice in that way, that's just the greatest thing that journalism can do."

Three: Pelley's reporting isn't liberal or conservative -- just truthful. Over his career he's been equally skeptical of Republicans and Democrats, of American and foreign leaders, and I'd expect that to continue. He may help dispel the image of the CBS Evening News as a liberal bastion by keeping the show in the Walter Cronkite tradition of objectivity, which may help lure some new viewers.

Pelley's own words: "We go down for the original information insofar as it can be found, and then we test it. I don't think that young journalists realize how similar their job is to the job of a scientist. It's a very similar sort of thing: you get down to the original information and you test it, and you test it again, and you peer review it, and you test it again -- it's very much like science. Science doesn't care, by and large, what the answers are. It's only interested in getting the right answer. And journalism should be very much that way. "

Four: Pelley sees how journalism is changing, and understands that its future ultimately depends on having strong news organizations that will serve the public interest.

Pelley's own words: "The quality of life in America is dependent on the quality of the journalism. Most people don't realize that, but if you think about it, journalism is one of the pillars on which our society is perched. And you can't pull that pillar out. It relates to the quality of our politics, it relates to the quality of life, it is essential to having a great country. You look at the countries in this world with restricted journalism, with poor journalism, with government-controlled journalism, and you tell me if you want to live in any of those countries. I bet you don't."

"If you want to expose the big lies and the big injustices that are perpetrated by governments, you need to have a very strong, well-financed and robust organization to take on that kind of thing. We just can't live without that -- there has to be a way to carry that forward. A lot of people are trying a lot of different things in the business models to maintain that kind of robust journalism, but we cannot, as a society, afford to lose it. One of the greatest strengths of this country is the quality of its journalism. People take it for granted. It's too bad. But the quality of the journalism is what helps keep our country on the right path."

And Pelley has produced some extraordinary journalism in his career, racking up nearly every major news award in the process. His knack for a story is clearly one of the reasons why 60 Minutes is still one of the most watched shows on television.

Everything that Pelley says indicates he'll shape the CBS Evening News into something intense and worthwhile. And people who really care about the news, like many of the readers of this site, should tune in.

Why Radio Will Live on

2011-03-25T11:47:58-04:00

Imagine that you're on the bus going to work. As you pass a particular building, your phone asks you if you'd like to hear a radio story about an event that happened there.

Then you get a text on your phone from a different station asking you to write back if you're stuck in traffic. The station uses the information to create a real-time traffic map on its website.

Then a Twitter message asks, since it's the 8th day of the month, for you to vote on which of three composers' 8th symphonies you'd like to hear at lunchtime on the local classical music station.

This is the future of radio.

I sit on the Community Advisory Board of New York Public Radio, and we just held an event about what's in store for the medium of radio.

And I'm happy to report that radio's future -- or at least the future of audio reporting -- is still bright in many ways. And new technologies like the ones I describe above, and social media, are all helping to keep audio reporting alive.

Many radio stations are hurting these days, as young people lose the radio habit. Radio's "not cool," as one speaker put it. Indeed, very few of my students at Fordham University own one, even a clock radio.

But the stodgy image of radio is changing, as radio stations use social media and other communication technologies to engage their audiences.

Radio stations are already moving aggressively into social media. Part of that effort includes obvious things like Twitter feeds and Facebook pages. But that's all going to expand even more, as stations benefit from new, innovative ways to send and receive information.

Social media is clearly succeeding in bringing in some young listeners. People under 30 may not tune in to radio regularly, but if someone sends them a link to some great piece of audio, they may just open it. And if they listen and like what they hear, they might then tune in to a radio show, or subscribe to a podcast. Experience shows that good content will hold listeners if they just give it a try.

And it's not just social media that's engaging radio audiences. WNYC, New York's main NPR station, has been successfully using texting, too. Example: after last December's devastating snowstorm, the mayor said in a press conference that the city was doing a good job of clearing the streets. WNYC quickly asked listeners to text in to say whether or not their street had been cleaned. The station used the info to make a map, and then went back to listeners over the next few days to update it. Then the station asked those same people, once the streets were clean, if their garbage had been collected. That's real community engagement.

Technology is also remaking the broadcasting side of radio. Anyone can now make and broadcast radio programming on a home computer, and receive it on nearly any mobile device.

That means that terrestrial radio will undoubtedly go away someday. But I seriously doubt that that's going to be the end of radio. Radio stations will continue to exist, but they will distribute their programming digitally, and use the money they now spend on over-the-air broadcasting on content creation instead.

That may be a good thing in the long run, because stations' money will go to hiring more staff, funding more stories and developing new, technologically savvy ways of reporting instead of expensive transmitting equipment. Internet broadcasting already allows people to hear stations from far, far away, increasing listenership and, with that, potentially revenues.

In the end, though, the future of audio reporting is all about the content. Radio not only provides great reporting, but it's also a valuable editorial voice that helps listeners makes sense of the barrage of information that is raining down on us all these days.

That's why my former CBS News colleague Mike Wallace and I wrote our recent guidebook for young journalists, Heat and Light: Advice for the Next Generation of Journalists -- to argue to young people that no matter the delivery system, what really keeps journalism valuable is strong content. And by using technology to improve its content, radio can keep itself not only alive, but vibrant.

Anna Chapman Goes Online

2011-03-08T19:04:57-05:00

Anna Chapman, the bombshell Russian spy, has a new website. It's only in Russian... but as a Russian speaker who spent 15 years as a reporter in Russia, I can try to translate this curious little glimpse into Chapman's world.

Anyone can sign on to www.annachapman.ru and enjoy a multitude of official photos, no matter what any language you speak. Check out the "personal photos" section, on the bottom left of the home page, for a slide show of Chapman looking sultry and sporty.

But the part you need Russian to understand is the contacts section. It lists five, count 'em, five different press people to keep the Anna Chapman juggernaut moving along:

One for "charities, orphans and volunteer groups."

One for questions of "joint projects, investments and innovations."

One for "questions about her show on the Russian tv network Ren-TV."

One for advertising and "product placement" for her show, which is called "Secrets of the World."

And one for "questions of a commercial nature and PR."

Note that not one of those five press officers seems to be the point person for interview requests that don't involve commerce or public relations -- say, ones from ordinary journalists. It's all about making money.

That seems at odds with the rather humble personal message Chapman gives on the home page of the site. "Before I returned to Moscow in July 2010, I strove to achieve personal harmony and was more concerned with my own happiness," she writes. "But in time my ideology changed. I understand that we grasp the fullness and meaning of life in our desire and efforts to help those around us."

Right.

Anna's already somewhat overexposed in Russia ...pun intended. She posed nearly nude for the Russian version of Maxim, and has been working as eye candy for a Russian bank.

What's really much more interesting and telling is how Chapman been embraced by officialdom since returning to Russia in last summer's Soviet-style spy swap. She's become the poster girl for patriotism.

When I was in Moscow for New Year's, I was awestruck to see that Anna was invited on national television to give a toast to her countrymen just minutes before the Russian president himself came on to usher in the New Year. You don't get that kind of place of honor unless the men in the Kremlin approve.

And now those same officials have asked Chapman to run for the Russian parliament when elections are next held in December. Since the Russian system works off party lists rather than by the kind of direct elections we have for Congress in America, she'll be a shoo-in as long as President Dmitri Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin put her towards the top of the slate. Chapman has already been working for the youth wing of their political party, which is getting her another big shot of publicity.

Anna might have been a bush-league spy, but she has certainly learned how to be a first-rate self-promoter. And her new site shows she's now got a big team to help.

Check it out...or if espionage is not your thing, then go to www.annachapman.com, which is the site for a Florida doll maker. That website sells some lovely hand-sculpted dolls but, surprisingly, not one of them looks Russian.

For more information on my guidebook for young journalists co-written with my CBS News colleague Mike Wallace, please go to www.heatandlight.org.

When News Moves to Facebook

2011-03-02T13:01:53-05:00

Today, another technological tremor is shaking the world of journalism, as the local news blog Rockville Central becomes a Facebook-only site. It may be a tiny blog, but the potential results of this experiment are humongous.

"We think this is a pioneering -- and gutsy -- move," write Rockville Central's editor  and publisher. 

Gutsy, yes. Some commentators have also called it brilliant. But the word I'd use is risky -- because right now there are some very serious institutional problems with using Facebook as a news platform. And it's a wake-up call to Facebook to change if it really wants to move into news.

Rockville Central is a micro-news blog covering Rockville, Maryland, a suburb of Washington D.C. It's been around since June 2007, becoming a hub for its readers with a mix of news, opinion and community service posts.

But last month, after increased competition from other micro-news sites covering the same town, the editors of Rockville Central announced that they were taking all new posts to their Facebook page, starting today.

"Facebook is where people, by and large, have decided to go for their first-stop online community activities," explain the editor and publisher in a posting. "Which begs the question: Why have a separate site, and try to drag people away from Facebook? Why not go where they are?"

They have a point. But, as lots of other writers have pointed out, the move to Facebook creates huge financial issues. Only Facebook sells ads on its pages and doesn't share the money with content creators, meaning Rockville Central just lost its ad revenue. That's obviously a big problem in the long run, especially for news operations that aren't part-time labors of love.

What I'd like to focus on is something else -- the way the move to Facebook weakens Rockville Central's news product. As the great media critic Marshall McLuhan pointed out, "The medium is the message." And moving to the medium of Facebook seems to be watering down the Rockville Central message in two key ways.

First, on its Facebook page, it's now harder to find the news than it was. The news that's there is mixed in with posts from readers, meaning one has to discern what's news and what's opinion. Yes, you can easily click to see only the postings that come from Rockville Central's writers, but along with the news you also get their questions to illicit reader responses like, "Who's watching the Oscars? and "What are your plans for the day?" The overall effect is to dilute the news.

Second, the amount of each news posting that you can see without clicking for the full story is shorter on Facebook than on the original Rockville Central site. For the few stories I was able to compare before the site went Facebook only, the original site had more than 25 percent more content visible before jumping than the Facebook version.

Having less content visible on the main page may make it less likely readers will be interested enough to click for the whole story. And it means that people who only read only the tease will know less when reading on Facebook than they would have on the original news site. That also dilutes the content.

Of course, this echoes two larger, very worrying trends in journalism today. The first is the melding of news and opinion that started on cable news and has expanded to the media at-large. The second is the move towards lighter and tighter journalism, where fewer media are willing to invest in long stories or complicated subjects.

Don't get me wrong. I love Facebook. As a way to stay in touch and spread information amongst friends and acquaintances, it can't be beat. But it can only house a useful news site if readers can find news easily, and if the content remains strong and factual.

People are already suggesting that the struggling mainstream media can save itself by moving over to Facebook. I'm doubtful it can happen unless two things occur.

In the short run, sites like Rockville Central have to learn to make the most of Facebook as it's set up now, to try to highlight the meaningful content. If the site only shows about 40 words before you need to click for more, then make those 40 words count.

Then in the long run, Facebook needs to change its financial arrangements with content creators to share revenue, and redesign pages to make them work better as news platforms. News organizations need different features than private citizens do.

The content, its delivery and the financing will have to be right for Rockville Central to make it as a news pioneer. And that won't happen unless Facebook helps.

For more information on our book, please go to www.heatandlight.org

Why CBS News, and Everyone Else, Needs to Remember Mike Wallace

2011-02-11T10:39:10-05:00

It's great news for those of us who worked at CBS News to see one of our own back at the helm. I have high hopes that Jeff Fager, the immensely talented 60 Minutes chief who has just been elevated to the newly created post of chairman of CBS News, can do something to stem the slide at the Tiffany network.

But it's not going to easy. I don't want to single out the troubles of CBS News, because I still work there from time to time as a freelancer. But the current state of journalism in this country is pretty bleak. Economic pressures and budget cuts mean that these days, many media outlets simply aren't doing a very good job of covering the news. It's not unusual today to see foreign news covered by a correspondent who is thousands of miles from where the news is happening. Too many journalists are satisfied with parroting wire service copy instead of doing original reporting. And there's just too little watchdog journalism... the kind of reporting that may take weeks or months and thousands of dollars to accomplish, but is one of journalism's most important civic functions.

But that's not the worst of it.

No, the real problem lies in the two vicious cycles this trend creates. The first of these is the drop-off effect: As the quality of news outlets suffers, readers find themselves with still less incentive to seek out those outlets' content. The natural result is that circulations and ratings diminish even further. This loss of audience puts even more downward pressure on funding, which in turn continues to reduce the quality of the reporting, which further alienates readers and viewers...and so on.

The second of these cycles -- the knowledge gap -- is more insidious, but it's one I've found hard to ignore in my hours spent teaching journalism at Fordham University since leaving full-time employment at CBS News in 2006. I've found that too many young and aspiring reporters don't really know what journalism actually means -- much less how to actually go about the process of creating original, high-quality reporting. And who can blame them? When there are so few examples of real journalism out there these days, it's easy to understand why young people today might think that journalism consists of rewriting the Internet, or be baffled about how to embark on a worthy path in their own journalism careers.

How do we solve those problems? Part of the solution lies in coming up with new economic models to support quality journalism. But another part of it is much simpler: despite the terrible economic pressures they're facing, organizations and journalists that create high-quality, original reporting will become standouts in this environment. They'll pull in awards, acclaim, and readers, and escape the downward spiral that might engulf them otherwise.

Proof: 60 Minutes, which has managed under Jeff Fager's leadership to continue to do hard-hitting reporting, which has kept the show relevant and drawn viewers. The show is still in the top 10 after more than 40 years, because it has the resources and influence to do reports that others can't. Scott Pelley, the marvelous correspondent for 60 Minutes, told me that he spent more than $200,000 to report about atrocities in Darfur. That report, which won an Emmy, is exactly the kind of journalism that keeps 60 Minutes must-see TV.

More proof: Rolling Stone magazine has seen its circulation creep up in the past two years when most others' has been tanking, thanks to aggressive, groundbreaking reporting by the likes of Michael Hastings and Matt Taibbi. Theirs are the kinds of stories that win awards, that readers recommend to friends and family members... and that make Rolling Stone subscribers feel that they're getting something in return for their hard-earned cash, a sensation that's all too rare among magazine readers these days.

But what about the other part of the equation: making sure that today's generation of aspiring journalists is empowered to help fight this downward trend in the coming years? Put simply, how do we ensure that tomorrow's journalists have the skills and understanding needed to do groundbreaking reporting? By trying to get the very best journalists to tell them how it should be done.

And that's where Mike Wallace comes in.

Recently, I had the honor of collaborating with the legendary 60 Minutes star in writing a guidebook aimed at young journalists. Our book, Heat and Light, was written in the hope that we could help educate budding reporters on how to do journalism right. Our idea was to produce a readable, concise book that crystallizes the best practices in the business, and passes on some of the techniques that made Mike's storied career so remarkable. After all, Mike may be retired now, but arguably no living journalist has had as long or as meaningful a career -- or is more worth emulating.

While Mike has written two memoirs, he's never before explained his views on how journalism should actually be practiced. And as a CBS News producer-turned-journalism professor, I knew first-hand exactly which questions students most need answered, and how radically their experiences with today's media differed from best practices. So Mike and I created this guide for anyone who's starting out. We culled our own experiences, and incorporated tips from two dozen other people, including journalists like Scott Pelley and the top editors of the New York Times and Washington Post. And we try to help budding reporters not only by explaining those key concepts in journalism, but by providing step-by-step instructions young journalists can use as they prepare stories.

Why the title Heat and Light? Mike says the best journalism contains both what he calls heat -- meaning emotion and drama -- and light -- meaning fresh information. And it's the combination of both heat and light in a story that makes it truly great. In fact, that very combo has been the secret formula to the long-term success of 60 Minutes. And if Jeff Fager can work his magic and focus the whole news division on creating reports with Mike Wallace's sense of heat and light, it may just be what pulls CBS News out of the doldrums.

Beth Knobel is assistant professor of communication and media studies at Fordham University in New York. Before that, she was an Emmy-award winning producer for CBS News in Moscow. For more information on the book, please go to www.heatandlight.org, or join our group "Heat and Light" on Facebook.