As U.S. traditional media outlets, especially newspapers, work to survive in a new media world, the country’s largest organization of journalism educators appears to be paying only modest attention in research by graduate students and professors.

The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) is meeting this week in Chicago. A major purpose of the annual meeting is to share journalism ideas and research, much of it by graduate students.

My quick review of the conference agenda shows 788 refereed research presentations on a wide variety of communication topics. Judging by titles of the papers, only about 80 appear to deal with Internet and new media issues. The topics of a dozen of so others are difficult to determine.

That means only about 10 percent of the research papers deal with the Internet and new media issues. Many of those research papers are on topics far removed from the survival of traditional media organizations.

A caveat is in order. Some research sessions did not list the topics of papers. There are many panel discussions at the conference, some of which deal with new media issues. A review of the papers by title only is imprecise and it is likely some other papers might deal with new media issues. Research also is presented during the year in other venues.

Sorting out “new media” research in no way lessens the importance of other communication research being conducted in journalism programs across the country. Additionally, the research does not reflect the move to new media and new media techniques in journalism schools.

One thing is certain: in all the conference research agenda, it is difficult to find much discussion of the business woes of traditional media. Newspapers across the country are in trouble with declining readership and plunging profits, largely the result of changing habits of news and advertising consumption.

Touching on that subject, however, the AEJMC newspaper division presented four papers on young readers and their choices for reading news. That kind of research can prove valuable to news organizations looking for ways to cultivate a new generation of news consumers.

News organizations are begging for ideas and strategies to help them survive at a time of tremendous change. If journalism and mass comm researchers don’t supply those ideas, who will? What the media need is cutting edge research that can map a vision of the future. Posted by Leroy Towns

As every consumer of political news knows full well, campaigns are part smoke and mirrors, much of it engineered by the media.

Take NC’s U.S. Senate race between Incumbent Republican Elizabeth Dole and Democratic Challenger Kay Hagan. Polls vary, but on this they agree: Dole leads in the race, often with a good margin. Talk that she is vulnerable has been mostly wishful thinking by NC Democrats.

Enter the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which seems to have painted a bigger target on Dole than on any other incumbent Republican. To make her look vulnerable, they swept into North Carolina with a $7.3 million (initially reported as $6 million) reserve of air time to run television ads attacking her. Maybe they will spend it all, maybe they won’t. Meantime, $7.3 million is a scary pile of money.

Instant results: Politico and RealClearPolitics gave the story legs with its first-ever ranking of vulnerable U.S. Senate races, placing Dole-Hagan eighth.

That ranking is based on nothing more than the DSCC’s “planned” ad buy in North Carolina:

For a senator with a profile as high as Dole’s, one would think this race wouldn’t make the list. But the DSCC has reserved nearly $6 million in advertising time against the senator, and the committee believes state Sen. Kay Hagan is one of its best recruits. Dole has a financial advantage, and her early ads helped her regain a comfortable lead in the polls. It remains to be seen whether she can hold on to that early edge as the campaign gets under way.

The N&O’s Under the Dome Blog, anong other media outlets, snapped up the story.

See all that and pretty soon even cynical voters begin wondering whether North Carolina might go blue in the Senate.

At least that’s the hope of the DSCC. Some reporters aren’t buying the story yet. Monday’s NY Times came up with its own list of vulnerable Republicans. The Dole-Hagan race was not on the list. Posted by Leroy Towns.

Work by the media to ensure government is open and accessible to citizens is based on a simple concept: open government is good government.

The Raleigh News and Observer has been on the front lines of that battle in North Carolina, putting both money and manpower behind its crusade to make sure government officials are forthcoming.

N&O Executive Editor John Drescher laid out a passionate case for his newspaper’s efforts in a column Sunday. He recounted numerous problems with the administration of Gov. Mike Easley, then issued a warning to the two candidates vying for Easley’s job:

His successor — Democrat Bev Perdue or Republican Pat McCrory — might attempt to duplicate Easley’s obstruct-and-control style of dealing with the press.

If he or she does, mark my words, Perdue and McCrory: It will be a long four years.

We will fight you. We will sue you. We will report on your obstruction and law-breaking. And I will pound you in this column.

Your fight with us will distract you from getting your message out. It will impair your ability to govern. You will limp into your last year as governor the way Easley is limping out of his.

That raises a couple of questions. Is there evidence that either Perdue or McCrory are cut in the Easley mold when it comes to government secrecy? If so, let’s hear about it before voting time. If not, a measure of optimism might serve well.

Second, because the pursuit of open records is aimed at making government better, the threat to impair a governor’s “ability to govern” might seem to be headed in a bad direction.

Drescher’s frustration is understandable. Hopefully, the sun will shine brighter after November. Posted by Leroy Towns

Statewide campaigns more and more are fought on battlegrounds not chosen by either of the candidates.

The N&O reported last week that the Republican Governor’s Association is preparing a high dollar ad campaign against Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Bev Perdue. The newspaper today reported the Democratic Governor’s Association has given $500,000 to a “mysterious group” that is financing TV ads against Republican Pat McCrory.

Neither candidate was consulted by the independent groups preparing to influence their respective races.

The N&O reported concern that both groups would spend out-of-state funds on the NC governor’s race.

Political money stopped respecting state lines years ago. Indeed, why should it make any difference where political donors call home as long as the source of the money is disclosed?

In the case of the “mysterious group,” that’s exactly the problem: there was no disclosure of contributions to the effort, although the N&O reported the Democratic group intended to file a list of donors later.

The key to any campaign finance system is tough public disclosure, and North Carolina needs more of it in the case of independent expenditures in state races.

At the federal level, McCain-Feingold “reforms” that banned “soft” money resulted in a bigger role for so-called 527 groups that make independent expenditures. By federal law, those expenditures cannot be coordinated with the campaigns they support.

In the North Carolina Senate race this year between Incumbent Republican Elizabeth Dole and Democratic Challenger Kay Hagan, independent expenditures may well overshadow the candidates’ own campaigns. State media outlets have reported the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has reserved $6 million in advertising against Dole.

Those stories may have missed the mark. Washington insiders say the DSCC has purchased $7.4 million in the state in an effort to defeat Dole. Even though the DSCC is rolling in cash and plans to spend more than $40 million this election cycle, $7.3 million is a huge figure for one race, especially when Dole leads comfortably in most polling. Could it be a grudge match? Remember, Dole led the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s (NRSC) effort against Democratic senators in 2006 and the DSCC may go to extra lengths to topple her.

Although it is behind in cash, the NRSC pledged to match the DSCC’s big money in Senate races across the county. It is asking incumbent senators to help.

Compare what’s ahead this year with the 2006 congressional races in the state, where independent expenditures totaled only $1.9 million. Of course, the Senate race raises the stakes this year.

Even leaving aside the presidential race in North Carolina, voters are in for quite a show over the next few months, only part of which will be produced and directed by the candidates. Posted by Leroy Towns

Barack Obama’s overseas trip dominated 51 percent of all campaign coverage last week according to new data compiled by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Said PEJ:

Whatever the tone of the coverage, Obama’s visit to the Middle East and Europe was an extraordinary media event. Coverage of the trip consumed 51% of the campaign newshole for the week of July 21-27, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s Campaign Coverage Index. That was enough to make it the second-biggest campaign story line since PEJ began tracking them in mid-March. (Only coverage of the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, during the week of April 21-27, generated more attention.)

But the study noted some of the media coverage involved reporters agonizing over whether they were paying too much attention to the Democratic candidate. CBS, for example, contrasted Obama’s coverage with news coverage of John McCain. “According to the story, 40 journalists, at a cost of $20,000 a head, traveled with Obama. But when McCain touched down on a tarmac in New Hampshire, he was greeted by only two reporters.” Posted by Leroy Towns

Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble
when you’re perfect in every way
–Mac Davis

The 2008 presidential campaign continues to be historic. Never before have Americans witnessed a non-incumbent who assumed the mantle of incumbency and declared himself The President in the midst of a campaign.

But that’s the message strategy of Barack Obama as he winds up a World Tour the media have given rock star qualities. Obama declared himself President, traveled to Afghanistan to make policy pronouncements, negotiated a withdrawal of troops in Iraq, discussed peace with the Israelis and Palestinians, talked shop with European leaders and addressed an adoring crowd estimated at 200,000 near the Berlin Wall.

President Bush? He’s been irrelevant for a while. McCain? Last we saw, he was the other old duffer in the golf cart with Bush One at Kennebunkport.

Obama’s message has depended on tight control by the campaign and cooperation from the media, writes Media Critic Howard Kurtz, who notes pictures from the tour have been especially powerful symbols.

Question is, will it last? Will the media continue to cooperate? What will voters make of a candidate acting like a president to crowds in Europe even before he’s elected?

Gabriel Sherman, writing in the New Republic, notes a few cracks are beginning to appear in Obama’s relationship with reporters:

Reporters are grumbling more and more that the campaign is acting like the Prom Queen. They gripe that it is “arrogant” and “control[ling],” and the campaign’s own belief that Obama is poised to make history isn’t endearing, either. The press certainly helped Obama get so far so fast; the question is, how far can he get if his campaign alienates them?

A campaign that assumes the mantle of history plays with fire. Indeed, settling the mantle of destiny on one’s shoulders is especially dangerous in politics: all sorts of actions are justified in the name of destiny.

Analyzing the World Tour, NY Times columnist David Brooks noted: “Obama has benefited from a week of good images. But substantively, optimism without reality isn’t eloquence. It’s just Disney.”

In the end, that Berlin crowd of 200,000 does not get to vote. And chances are that in Peoria on election day they still like a little humility with their ballots. Posted by Leroy Towns

Was the fact that the Republican Governor’s Association established a PAC to aid GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Pat McCrory the biggest news in North Carolina Wednesday?

Yes, if judged by the way the Raleigh News and Observer played the story: It got a banner headline at the top of page 1–the spot reserved for the biggest news of the day.

In reality, however, the story was rather routine. It is difficult to know whether editors were excited because the PAC is mostly non-North Carolina money, because it is destined for a Republican, or because it resulted from a court decision that changed state law.

The PAC represents independent expenditures, meaning McCrory can have nothing to do with it. His campaign did not even know of the PAC’s existence until the N&O story. Apparently the PAC has raised $390,000.

Contrast the treatment of the new GOP PAC with how the newspaper played the recent news that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has placed $6 million (now up to $7.3 million) of television advertising in the state to assist Democratic Senatorial Candidate Kay Hagan in her bid to unseat Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole. That’s a huge ad buy, even for the DSCC. If actually spent, it will boost Hagan and pay for negative TV ads against Dole.

The N&O’s Under the Dome blog covered the story as a routine item a week ago with comment and reaction.  A much bigger story, the DSCC money received no Page 1 treatment and no banner headlines.

The good news in all this is the fact political news is being written at all. Posted by Leroy Towns

The blogs are ahead of traditional media on the John Edwards “love child” story.

The story, denied by Edwards, has been around for a while. It came to life again this week with the National Enquirer publishing a breathless story that Edwards secretly visited mother and child in LA.  Slate weighed in with a story headlined, “Why the Press is ignoring the Edwards ‘Love Child’ Story.”

Old line media always have had trouble dealing with a juicy story of this kind, especially when it was first published in a supermarket tabloid.

But this is the age of new media and it is doubtful traditional media can ignore the story much longer.

WUNC’s Laura Leslie gave legs to the story in her blog, Isaac Hunter’s Tavern. Leslie noted that it is the topic of conversation by members of the NC statehouse press corps. While not writing it up, those folks believe that “if Edwards isn’t fooling around, then he’s guilty of political bone headedness.” Leslie is a top reporter in the state and the fact she’s blogging on the topic just has to move traditional media closer to dealing with it. Her blurb was headlined “Politicos Behaving Badly.”

Edwards is out of the presidential hunt, of course, but he’s still a remote possibility to be picked as Barack Obama’s Veep.

Whether the story is true of not, we are sure to see much more about it. Once again, blogs lead journalism. Posted by Leroy Towns

Udate: Slate reports LA Times editors have banned bloggers from writing about the Edwards story. Applying old media thinking to new media, editor Tony Pierce said in a memo: “There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified. If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don’t hesitate to ask.”

Nearly half of all Americans believe news reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the presidential race, according to a new poll by Rasmussen:

The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey…found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage

While it is no surprise there is a partisan split in the numbers, 49 percent is an extraordinary number of Americans who basically do not trust political reporters to tell the truth about candidates.

And why should they? A week ago, the New York Times all but turned over its op ed page to Obama so that he could wax poetic about his plans for Iraq and his foreign policy expertise. This week, the Times rejected a response by McCain.

No wonder previous Rasmussen polling found only 24 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the NY Times.

Additionally, Obama on his current world tour is accompanied by reporters with the biggest of big feet, including network anchors. That’s a message hard to miss.

In addition to worrying about how to make money in this new digital world, media folks had better start paying attention to these numbers. After all, these numbers about reader trust are really numbers about media relevancy. Posted by Leroy Towns

Memo to civic organizations, professional groups and news outlets: stop letting political candidates get away with ducking debates and joint appearances.

Meetings last week of the two major NC media organizations are good examples of how candidates are able to duck sharing the podium with their opponents.

At the NC Press Association, Gubernatorial candidates had an opportunity to appear jointly. Republican Pat McCrory was eager. Democrat Bev Perdue apparently was not. The result was that the two appeared back-to-back, each answering many of the same questions, a redundant process that had everyone grumbling.

At the NC Association of Broadcasters a few days later, both candidates for the U.S. Senate, Democrat Kay Hagan and Republican Elizabeth Dole, were invited to a joint appearance to be carried by the broadcasters statewide. Dole declined, but Hagan was eager. Dole, however, spoke in her official capacity as a sitting U.S. Senator. Additionally, the broadcasters invited Perdue and McCrory. McCrory accepted but Perdue declined.

Other organizations and news outlets have had similar experiences. Too many candidates want to minimize time on the stage with their opponents.

That deprives citizens of many opportunities to view both candidates in a race and evaluate their positions and their campaign styles. Candidates want to control their images. They do that in part by controlling their public appearances. Debates complicate that control process–bad for the candidates, good for voters.

Candidate time, of course, is limited and not every invite is worthy of a joint appearance or debate. But many invitations hold the potential for wide audiences across the state. It would be hard to find a better statewide forum than the two NC media organizations.

To be sure, Dole and Hagan will participate in one or more debates this fall. Perdue’s campaign says she has accepted five debates, although McCrory would like more. Every joint appearance does not have to be a formal “debate,” just a chance for voters to evaluate both candidates on the same stage. How many are enough? The more the better.

Debates and joint appearances add a touch of honesty campaigns.

There’s a simple solution to reluctant candidates. News outlets and organizations should tell candidates they are hosting a debate, or joint appearance, and that the event will proceed whether or not both candidates are present. The candidate who declines will be represented by a name on an empty chair, a tactic that has been used before by television stations around the country.

Few candidates can withstand the bad image of a vacant chair. Most reluctant candidates will show up. Voters will benefit. Posted by Leroy Towns