Practicing journalism or law?

Today I got caught up to speed with the drama surrounding the Medill Innocence Project, the Northwestern University-based program that, over the past dozen years, used the work of journalism students to exonerate 10 or so death row inmates who were unjustly convicted of their crimes.

It seems David Protess, who headed the program, was essentially kicked out of the university because he allegedly altered the text of an email that hid the fact that his students were cooperating with defense attorneys in the cases they worked on.

Actually, Protess officially "resigned" -- although that may be a loose definition given the circumstances. In fact the New York Times this morning had a nice wrapup on the shady mess.

The title of this post has been a question others have been asking of J-schools regarding this case. I think it's an appropriate question.

I had already left the newspaper industry for the first time to work for a niche online publisher when Protess and the Innocence Project starting getting national attention -- and attaining a sort of celebrity status in the journalism industry. But I was still captivated by what they were doing. Like many others, I went into journalism with a sense of purpose and to do some good. But saving lives? That's pretty huge.

Although Protess' fate seems to have more to do with university politics than anything else, the Times article suggests that the success of the Innocence Project -- some tie the elimination of Illinois' death row to its work -- may have led to some overstepping of journalistic bounds, which essentially stripped the students from protection under Illinois' shield laws for journalists. And by handing over their notes to defense attorneys (as well as professional journalists), it actually does sound like the students were practicing law more than they were practicing journalism, particularly since they weren't even writing their own stories.

All of which isn't really so bad, given the results -- unless this mess actually impacts those results. Here's hoping that won't happen.

Don't get it

It's been a week of horrible news for the newspaper industry, and I can't stop thinking -- who dropped the ball?

I miss journalism, but I don't miss the head-in-the-sand approach to the newspaper business. It isn't like nobody saw it coming.

I simply don't get why newspapers are dying, especially in the Bay Area. We have more entrepreneurial talent, more writers, more READERS than practically anywhere in the country.

If journalism is to survive the passing of newspapers, it ought to survive it here. And it's not.

The idea of newspapers going out of business doesn't really concern me. What concerns me is the death of news. The fact is, newspapers are the first source of many, many news events that get picked up by other media like radio, TV, film, and Google. And in this respect, the death of any newspaper, no matter how bad, is concerning.

Because there's nothing taking it's place. OK, we have blogs, social networks. But there's one less organization going after the who, what, where, when, why and how, like only a newspaper can.

One opinionated blogger doesn't have the manpower, objectivity or legal assistance. One TV news report doesn't have the time.

I thought I was done with journalism. Yet I'd be lying if I wasn't secretly thinking about a way to somehow make it work.