For those who follow journalism and press rights issues, here's a roundup of some interesting pieces on those topics from the past few days:
1. The journalistic lessons of the Richard A. Jewell case. Kevin Sack, who was The Times's lead reporter on the Olympics bombing in Atlanta in 1996, opens his piece accompanying the Retro Report with this compelling statement: “I can't remember ever being so furious with an editor.†The report's video features archival footage and recent interviews to show how much of the media coverage relied on unidentified law enforcement sources to cast enduring suspicion on Mr. Jewell. (The Retro Report is a weekly video series that revisits past news stories.)  In today's era of ever-more-competitive news - Twitter wasn't even a gleam in the Internet's eye in 1996 - these lessons are well worth reviewing.
2. The worsening atmosphere for journalists in the leak-crackdown era. Leonard Downie Jr., the former executive editor of The Washington Post, describes how reporters are trying to fight back, but also about the difficult challenges. He quotes, for example, the veteran national security journalist R. Jeffrey Smith of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit accountability news organization. “I worry now about calling somebody because the contact can be found out through a check of phone records or e-mails,†Mr. Smith said. “It leaves a digital trail that makes it easier for government to monitor those contacts.†It's ugly out there for journalists (which means for citizens, too), and not getting any better.
3. False equivalency in government shutdown coverage. James Fallows in The Atlantic and Dan Froomkin on Aljazeera America's Web site wrote strong pieces recently, laying out how news coverage often fails to communicate the real dynamic of the situation. The Times's Nicholas D. Kristof picked up on the theme in his Sunday column. And a Times reader, David Cooper, expressed concern to me via e-mail on Saturday: “The so-called ‘deadlock, ‘impasse,' ‘dead end,' ‘shutdown,' etc., is clearly caused by the House speaker's refusal to hold a clean vote.†All these writers make good points. False equivalency makes it harder for readers to make it through the thicket of information; journalists need to work harder to root it out.
4. The executive editor on horse-race political coverage, sexist coverage of women, and more. Jill Abramson, The Times's executive editor, talked with Ken Auletta over the weekend during The New Yorker Festival. She covered a lot of ground, including her disagreement with the public editor on a post from last week. (Executive editors and public editors have been known to disagree. I predict this won't be the last time.)
