I've been watching the cut downs and demise of paper newspapers and newsrooms around the country for the past year or so. On the one hand, you have the large metropolitan dailies that have seen their share of woes and on the other, there are some larger conglomerates who are acting for small local newspapers, by buying them as Macquarie Media did the Glen Rose Reporter or providing for a new model as Gatehouse Media is.

I love newspapers, Or, more properly, I love reading the news in a portable fashion. I used to curl up on Sunday mornings with some coffee and the Sunday paper and go through all the sections. The reading of the news was also wrapped up in the whole Sunday morning experience of sitting around in jammies, with the sun streaming in through an open window that let in the breeze, and feeling that the whole day lay ahead.

I didn't use to care much whether the news was accurate or not.. and I skipped most of the overseas articles. But when I finally did start reading for accuracy and whether I believed what was being said, I didn't like much one thing in particular. That is, you can't tell, in a newspaper, when the articles that have been written originate from a press release or some piece of propaganda someone or some company is trying to put out. I never even thought about this facet in my earlier newspaper reading days, but it matters to me now.

For example, suppose a newspaper gets a press release from some entity about a topic. Quite often the press release is put in as news, without any type of discussion about whether 1. the claims made are accurate or 1 2. there are other positions on the topic. I want to know, for example, who put out the information, does that person have a purpose in doing so, and what is the purpose?

I was reading a book recently and found that even in Roman days, those in charge of the news put out talking points. From page 657 of "Pagans and Christians" about Constantine and the Church.

Constantine's Good Friday sermon shows the man's public image and style of argument at greater length than any other document. It was a public statement and like other contemporary documents, it was circulated as Christian publicity. Its optimism and moral exhortation was not at odds with the tone of the previous Emperors' public statements. Theirs was an age of effusive public language; and it is worth setting the speech beside the themes which handbooks commended to public orators. When an Emperor was crowned by a city, so Menander told his readers, they should begin the conventional speech by praising the Emperor for his distinguished family. ... Ambassadors should emphasize how "God sent the Emperor down to earth because he knew he was merciful and a benefactor.." they should add "We plead with you and fall to your feet.

So, talking points are nothing new. But in searching for excellence in a newspaper, I want it to be clear where the source came from and at least a hint of whether the article is talking points for a particular point of view as opposed to objective news. It isn't that I mind reading press releases-it's that I want to KNOW when I'm reading a press release. Suppose that *news* that goes out to television about the president is actually PR prepared by some agency within the White House. Should I really expect that the items read in that context are going to be completely honest or believe that the White House will want to put the president in the best light possible? And if it's the latter, shouldn't I know what the source is? I've suspected for a long time that AP makes up articles from PR stuff it gets handed and then attempts to *balance* the viewpoint with at least one opposing or alternate comment. But there can be more than one opposing or alternate viewpoint to any piece of PR and presenting information as if it's a football match, with 2 teams, does a disservice to readers.

In the last couple of years, VNRs have gotten a lot of attention. Video News Releases are those video segments done by PR companies that are used on television that look like news items, but are not. (Remember when Clinton said her lofty words about VNRs? But she was producing them too?) And Radio and Television producers are complicit in this, even training news rooms in how to use VNRs.

Now that's television media and, at least to me, quite different than print media. And yet, seems like newspapers have been trying to be MORE like teevee. The FW Star-Telegram, for example, severely dumbed down its front page-less news, shorter articles, bigger print, more pictures... AS IF it was competing with the television, which is an entirely different form of media.

The principle remains though, that if you read more and more PR pieces that are dressed up to be news, and you're paying attention, after awhile you start questioning what you're reading and whether you can believe it. I don't mind if there are lots of PR pieces in a newspaper but I want them labeled as such, so that I can do my own research if the newspaper has failed to do so.