Jay Rosen, the NYU professor behind Press Think and New Assignment, spoke to CUNY’s J-school last week, dishing out nuggets of wisdom and prophetic foreshadowing. He spoke extensively and answered questions about his well-financed idea to reinvent journalism and give it back to the people, one citizen at a time.

“What motivates someone to donate [money] to great journalism?” Rosen asked. Josh Marshall did it with Talking Points Memo, cultivating a veritable armada of willing finaciers and contributors. Rosen hopes for a similar magnitude of success with New Assignment. “If it works, we can do things other publications haven’t thought of,” he said. The idea in his own words amounts to this:

New Assignment.Net is a non-profit site that tries to spark innovation in journalism by showing that open collaboration over the Internet among reporters, editors and large groups of users can produce high-quality work that serves the public interest, holds up under scrutiny, and builds trust.

A second aim is to figure out how to fund this work through a combination of online donations, micro-payments, traditional fundraising, syndication rights, sponsorships, advertising and any other method that does not compromise the site’s independence or reputation.

Rosen raked in $100K from Reuters to finance his baby. And I wish him the best of luck. He definitely has his work cut out for him. The press has been very resistant to change in the last few years, and it shows in the steep drop in newspaper circulation. Rosen believes that this paves the way for new thinking on news gathering and delivery. And I would hazzard a guess that he’s on to something.

While newspapers are focused on perfecting their Web-delivery services, and blogs are cornering the market on issue-focused politics or editorializing, the press as a whole is still stuck in a holding pattern. Will Rosen, with his lofty ideas for citizen-generated journalism, be able to maintain a stable of soccer moms and disgruntled civil employees to feed him stories and ground-level observations? Only 2007 knows for certain.

It is a place where a grim struggle between the government and its Arab allies, and non-Arab rebel factions, has given way to a fractured struggle that pits non-Arab tribes against one another, fanning centuries-old rivalries and setting the scene for a bloodbath of score-settling vengeance should the African Union soldiers withdraw, as demanded, at the end of this month.

On Monday, Polgreen reported from the frontlines of the conflict, where Darfur’s rebel armies were emboldened by victories over Sudanese government troops. The article contained this devastating passage:

Haroun Abdullah Kabir stepped from one bloodied corpse to another on the parched, rocky battlefield. He searched the soldiers’ decomposing faces for an aquiline nose, fair complexion or fine, straight hair: telltale Arab features.
Instead Mr. Kabir, a field commander of the Darfur rebels fighting the Arab-dominated Sudanese government, found among the Sudanese soldiers his men had felled only the dark-skinned faces of southern Sudanese and Darfurians. He looked away in disgust.

“You see, they send black men to kill black men,” he said. “We are waiting for them to send Arabs for a real fight.”

Sudan Tribune has a stinging rebuke of international efforts thus far to reform Darfur, coupled with a few ways to, um, reform darfur. This site is weird, calling itself “‘news and views’ on Sudan” (quote marks their’s). Still, its easy interface and comprehensive archives make it a pretty good site to visit for passionate material about the plight of the Sudanese. Here’s their “about us” info:

SudanTribune is a non profit web site based in France.
Its goals are to promote plural information, democratic and free debate on Sudan.

France? Well, it’s closer to the action than Wichita I guess.

But back to my headache (which I contend was not beer/wine/guacamole related). So many internships! So many job opportunities! Aieeee! Damn. I was really happy to hear so many editors tell us that they were willing to publish our stories, that all we had to do was pitch them interesting and entertaining pieces and the world was our oyster. The problem was this: when am I supposed to have this time to hit the streets and work on these entertaining and unique stories while I’m in school full-time. Granted, we have our reporting days, but I’m ususally running around in circles trying to put together “live-in” stories or political memoes or legal/ethics stories that I rarely have the time to sit with people and listen to their stories, to their feelings or concerns. In a perfect world, maybe, but not when I’m busy trying to keep track of all my obligations for the school. Oh, I wish I had the time.

I guess I was just a little overwhelmed by it all, is what I’m trying to say. It was really informative and I’m glad CUNY put it together for us. I hope to soon get something published in one of these papers (Brooklyn Papers, I’m gunning for ya), but where I’m at now, I’m just hoping I can get a draft of my legal and ethics story in next week with some quality sources.

Anyone else feeling as stressed as me? Or am I just a whiny neophyte? Either way, I hope to get a hang on juggling all this stuff sometime soon. Until then, Blog’s away!!

Furthermore, relative to the level of skills/practical knowledge we’ve gotten from you in your class, I don’t think you have any right to demand anything. Personally I’m not compelled to produce anything for a class where I am both mistreated and simultaneously untended to as a learner. How dare you? You give me a hard time about where I spend my time, when you and your class are among the chief wasters of it.

I’m not in any way endorsing Manny’s rant here. But I do find it highly interesting that he chose to post his feelings in his class blog. This could have remained a private battle between him and Prof. Hochberger. Instead, he’s involved the entire school by publicizing it on his blog. Was this the intention when Prof. Jarvis told us to start our own blogs? Maybe not, but I commend him for using the forum to his own purposes. Now we get to watch the fireworks fly…

Mr Annan said continuing to block UN intervention could leave Sudan’s leaders open to be “held collectively and individually responsible for what happens to the population in Darfur”.

He added that Darfur would be discussed at a UN Security Council meeting on Monday.

Darfur is inching its way back into the media more and more lately, which is such a relief. More coverage, in my opinion, will hopefully lead to more action and more pressure on international leaders to bring the full brunt of their scorn on Sudan’s leadership.

That said, I’m really impressed with the BBC’s online coverage of Darfur. It’s succinct, clearly packaged. Maps, video links, profiles of important people – really everything you could want in quality news coverage.

The New York Time Online, on the other hand, is more visually appealing, but maybe not as exhaustive as the BBC. The Times’ articles are excellent, and the multimedia is visually arresting. However, when I open the “Darfur page,” I’m a little taken aback by the clutter. Sure, it looks well researched, etc., but it could be a little more clearly delineated. That’s just my two cents.

• Cinema verite-style video footage of the rally. A link to the video on the sidebar of the story. Videos would have very little commentary so as to give the reader an honest, unfiltered look at the rally, who was in attendace, what was said, etc. Perhaps also a link to YouTube videos from the rally.
• An audio/visual slideshow showing people – regular people, celebreties and official individuals involved in humanitarian activities – and pairing their faces with audio clips of quotes. This is a good way for readers to put words with faces.
• As long as money is no option, perhaps we could have a correspondent actually in Darfur to gauge reactions to the rallies. This would be a great, if difficult, way to add an important layer of context to the story.
• There should be a place for readers to sound off on the story, a place for them leave comments and interact with each other – debate, sympathize, discuss.
• Links to other news stories about the rally, or to stories about other rallies around the country. This would provide readers with some perspective and would allow them to form their own conclusions based on a well-rounded cache of information.
• Links to blogs discussing the rallies. There will be no doubt a good number of bloggers in attendance and it would be essential to tap those bloggers as sources to give readers multiple points of view on the same story. Also, bloggers would probably be open to the idea of cross-linking if it increases traffic at their own sites.
• Link to any Flickr (or other photo site) photo groups that feature photographs from the rally. Sure, they’re unprofessional for the most part, but they’d provide the reader with a real, on-the-ground view of the marches.
• While the story itself should contain the relevant points about the diplomatic progress in bringing peace to Darfur, the story should link to any salient documents or official web sites that could heighten the understanding of the underlying issues of the rally.
• Links to past stories on Darfur, allowing readers to brush up on the subject, to understand the paper’s coverage of the subject better.
• An online discussion forum with the reporter, for readers to pose questions, perhaps about failings of the story, places where they think additional reporting would have been better.

Projecting their data to 31 months, or about three quarters of the conflict’s duration, they estimated that between 58,000 and 85,000 died in West Darfur alone. Assuming the same ratios of death and displacement in adjoining North and South Darfur, they arrive at a conservative estimate of 170,000 to 255,000 deaths.

Wow. This is…awful. And that something like this is allowed to slip under the MSM’s radar launches this high into the stratosphere of the tragically absurd. The fact that high-profile figures like George Clooney and Eli Weisel are adding their faces and voices to the humantarian effort is respectable, but in the end what does it accomplish?

Meanwhile, in the sphere-o-blog, nods and titters about President Bush’s comments on Darfur from his Sept. 15th press conference:

BUSH: And I suggested that there also be, you know, help from NATO nations in logistics and support in order to make the security effective enough so that a political process could go forward to save lives.

The problem is, is that the United Nations hasn’t acted. And so, I can understand why those who are concerned about Darfur are frustrated. I am.

So, it’s heartening that the situation in Sudan has our Commander in Chief “frustrated,” but does anyone else get the impression that the only reason he brought it up was to rip the U.N.?

Bloggers appear to be mostly caught up with upcoming marches and rallies on Sept. 17, the Day for Darfur.

The site managers call it an “rational alternative,” which is a welcome relief to a lot of news outlets playing to the lowest common denominator.

At Monday’s meeting in New York, the UN secretary general asked whether the international community, having not done enough for the people of Rwanda in their time of need, could just watch as this tragedy deepened.

Annan’s comments came at the same time the Human Rights Watch released a report detailing how the Sudanese government appears to be stepping up its aerial bombing campaign in an effort to stamp out rebel activity. (Thanks to small-d for the link to the report.)

BBC is only running a six graph story on Annan’s speech, even attributing the news about the bombing campaign to him. In fact, a Google news search of Darfur turns up no news about the report or the fun new bombings. At least, no stories leading with that development.

Elsewhere in the sphere-o-blog, there’s this industrious young lad from Nashville who writes a blog post every Monday about Darfur. Today’s highlights a rally in New York City on Sept. 17.

Sunday, September 17 is Global Day for Darfur, a day of rallies around the country and world, including a major rally in New York City to coincide with the convening of the 61st General Assembly of the United Nations, to urge immediate international action for Darfur.

Seems like the best time to hold a rally. However, with Iraq, Iran, Israel and Lebanon breathing over the 61st General Assembly’s shoulder like grim death, I must say I’m less than optimistic about Darfur making the cut. Besides, the U.N. can’t even send troops into the region until the Sudanese government gives the thumbs up. And unfortunately those thumbs appear to be occupied giving thumbs up to stepped up aerial bombing campaigns. Bad show.

While fairness can’t be determined solely by the numbers of pictures in a situation like this, there is one statistic worth keeping in mind: the death toll. Nearly 1,150 Lebanese died, most of them civilians. This is more than seven times as many as the roughly 150 Israelis, mostly soldiers, who died, according to The Times’s latest estimates.

Is this balance? Or fairness (as I’m coming to realize is a more sacred journalistic standard)? Is this how the editors decide which side receives more photographic coverage, the one with the most death and destruction?

And then there were reports that a photographer working for Reuters and AP had “enhanced” pictures to make Israeli actions seem more extreme. While clearly this is a better example of fabrication than of questionable balance, it still calls into question the difficulties of fairly covering a conflict as highly charged as the one in the Middle East.

My thoughts are these: yes, I do believe that more death and destruction should equal more coverage, because this is fair. Newspapers can hardly be accused of favoring one side over another just because it publishes more photos of citizens from that side perishing in an awful manner. Unfortunately, atrocities are news. If they are not treated that way, they ultimately will be misrepresented in the annals of history. Also, editors should take every possible precaution to ensure the photos they publish are undoctored and accurate. The news business is rife with enough scandal. It can live without any more.