If you want to see a movie that will make you ashamed to be an American, you should definitely check out Swing Vote. The new Kevin Costner feature asserts that the average American male takes 31 sick days a year, let's his 11 year old drive him home when he's too drunk, and doesn't know what the word "civic" means, let alone "responsibility." This movie could have been used for Al Qaeda training video.

But there was one reoccurring theme in the film: the blue-collar fear of job "insourcing," where the U.S. imports illegal Mexican immigrants to wash our dishes, pick our tomatoes, and torment Lou Dobbs. It's a play on another of America's fears: The outsourcing of American call-centers, and bloggers, to India.

But like the fly in your Chardonnay, the irony here is that "insourcing" is already happening — in India no less. There, English-speaking American journalists are flocking (by the dozens!) to escape the death of this nation's print journalism industry.

CONTINUED »

"The prospect of congressional approval of a federal 'media shield' law this year dimmed Wednesday when Senate Republicans blocked legislation that would protect journalists from being forced to reveal confidential sources. Supporters of the shield bill said it is possible - but unlikely - that the issue will be revived in September, after the Senate takes a planned monthlong recess starting this weekend. Otherwise, backers of the bill would be forced to begin again in January, when a new Congress convenes." [SFC]

This, when other bills in front of the Senate moving through votes in as little as six seconds.

CONTINUED »

That major newspapers even have policies regarding anonymous sourcing is, for the most part, a complete joke. Every time the rules regarding unnamed sources get revised, reporters and editors spend a week following the new game plan before resorting back to their usual way of doing things, which is: quote, quote, quote away!

Rulebooks usually state that reporters should rely on identified sources as much as possible, but on the "off chance" they must use an anonymous source, they must give readers a good reason why the source isn't being named as well as explain why a source should be trusted. This rarely happens, and instead "top level" and "knowledgeable" sources pepper newspaper copy, with explanations that include "asked not to be identified for fear of ruining relationships." Ya don't say!

So, ever the muckraker, Slate's Jack Shafer had an intern turn on Google News Alerts (with some help from Factiva) for all instances of anonymity in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Wall Street Journal. The result? A lengthy spreadsheet that rates anonymous source usage on a scale of "OK" to "awful," as well as noting who benefits from the quotations, the reporter or source. The takeaway? There's quite a bit of evidence that reporters often use anonymous sources to state the obvious, because doing so on their own would be sacrilegious! (Maybe the Associated Press' new policy will stop this?)

Below, shining examples of "awful" vs. "OK" anonymous sourcing.

CONTINUED »

Under Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier, the Associated Press is moving away from traditional journalism (read: reverse pyramids, equal voices to all sides) and implementing a "less bullshit" strategy: "In the stories the new boss is encouraging, first-person writing and emotive language are okay. So is scrapping the stonefaced approach to journalism that accepts politicians’ statements at face value and offers equal treatment to all sides of an argument. Instead, reporters are encouraged to throw away the weasel words and call it like they see it when they think public officials have revealed themselves as phonies or flip-floppers."

The argument could be made — an, on this website, we might have even made it — that moving in this direction is a good idea, because it outs politicians and other snakes for their true agendas without having to play nicey-nice because of journalism's rules.

Then there's the other side of things:

CONTINUED »

Perhaps some well-wishing j-school professor told you that in order to get ahead in this business, you need to line up prestigious internships, and that toiling away every summer during your undergrad will open to the door to endless opportunities, or at least one? Well, that may be the case, but that whole mentality is RUINING JOURNALISM!!!

CONTINUED »

Slate's Michael Kinsley explains the ridiculous nature of publishers measuring journalists' productivity – by counting the number of column inches, or words, they produce – by using far too many words in his explanation. That Kinsley is writing for a web magazine, however, means he has to use even more words than normal to express his point, to increase the length of the browser scroll bar on his article, which is the only way to truly measure the physical length of his column, and thus, his column-inches. Also: asdfkjh asjdf ;l asdfl akda 399 f0 a0a0 a0sfd. [Slate]

Every now and then, a ranting person comes along and argues that journalists, charged with remaining as objective as possible as they report the news, should disclose their political leanings. Today, it's James Poniewozik, writing in Time; he voted for Barack Obama. So goes the argument: Financial reporters disclose which stocks they own. Tech writers make known their preferences between Macs and PCs. So why don't political reporters tell you if they're more an Obama, Clinton, or McCain type?

"The reasons not to say whom you're voting for boil down mainly to the interests of journalists, not those of readers and viewers," argues Poniewozik. "It would be a pain in the neck. Campaign sources would mistrust you. Radio hosts and bloggers would have a field day. Readers would become suspicious."

It all, supposedly, perpetuates of a myth of neutrality that doesn't actually exist. But if a newspaper reporter discloses his political persuasions, and his cadre of sources evaporates, what good is he to readers?

Moreso, if a reporter, next to his byline, has his affiliations made public, won't even the most unbiased of articles be subject to unwarranted criticism? Or is that an option every publication should afford readers, who would get to make their own decisions about which journos to trust?

There seems a much more obvious solution here: Conservatives? Don't trust MSNBC or the New York Times. Liberals? Don't trust Fox News or the Daily Oklahoman.

We at Jossip don't really care about sports, but we do think ESPN is doing awesome things for sports journalists. We talked to Rob King, the editor-in-chief of ESPN.com to talk about investing in writing, fan expectation and how his son wants an elevator for his birthday.

ESPN seems to be aggressive in pursuing top-notch journalists over the past few months. So what's up with that?

It's something that has been going on for a long time. If you look at some of the people who make decisions here, they come from newspapers, magazines like Rolling Stone, Sports Illustrated. Vince Doria, who oversees our news coverage, is a longtime newspaper man. … It seems to be happening a condensed burst. Rick Reilly is a big enough name that it has generated more attention to what we're doing. But the truth of the matter is that we've long been involved with trying to find the best sports journalists we can. I'm happy recipient of that kind of attention myself. I was in newspapers for more than 20 years. I was working at the Philadelphia Inquirer when ESPN came and made me an offer I couldn't refuse.

CONTINUED »

For the past few months, ESPN has been gobbling up the best sports journalists in this country with the kind of money that would make most writers blush.

But their strategy is not to save journalism, but to save themselves. With the Internet and all that Web 2.0 stuff going on, keeping ratings growing is next to impossible for cable news. So ESPN is gambling on quality reporting to keep themselves relevant:

CONTINUED »

Rough Industry Holding onto a job was difficult this year, and so was staying alive. The Committee to Protect Journalists announced that 64 journalists in 17 countries died covering the news in 2007, the deadliest year since 1994. Don’t worry, mom—we’re working from home today! [AP]

Just a friendly reminder from the Independent: Iraq is the deadliest war for journalists ever. Over 200 reporters have died covering the war; only two reporters died during WWI. Iraq has become “the single most dangerous assignment in the history of journalism," according to Chris Cramer, the president of CNN International.

By comparison, the greatest threat to our work environment is the cacophony of noise coming from our heating pipes as we work from home in our pajamas.

Should journalists (like Hollywood writers) start getting residuals? Absolutely! says overworked/underpaid journalist/non-biased third party, Albert Kim, who writes:

As a writer who's worked both in Hollywood and journalism, it's clear to me that the arguments used to justify residuals in one field could certainly apply in the other. Just as in Hollywood, media conglomerates are always on the lookout for ways to repurpose their material. Journalism doesn't have as many natural recycling opportunities, but it does happen.

It sure does! Just ask Michael Olesker, Monica Crowley or, better yet, Jayson Blair.

Have you heard the bad news? Our lives apparently suck!

Journalists and broadcast announcers are among "the worst jobs for the 21st Century," according to forecasts by the U.S. government. Media outlets are expected to cut more jobs as the Internet replaces "old media."

And if you're reading this right now, it stands to reason that yours probably do, too.

Want to learn how to stretch a dollar? It's simple, says Times' editor Damon Darlin, so long as you're prepared to learn how to cook, ignore any/all raises, curb that morning latte habit and get married—for tax purposes, of course.

[Ed: Interestingly, Darlin neglects to group TimesSelect membership fees in with those other so-called "extraneous" expenses.]

And, as Darlin is quick to remind us, this is not his first foray into doling out penny-pinching advice. In fact, he previously wrote a similar cost-cutting column for the Times, which was then forwarded by thousands of overprotective mothers (using some kind of newfangled technology called "the internets") and subsequently rejected by their sons and daughters, some of whom were even pissed enough to write Darlin a not-so-formal email.

CONTINUED »

Have you heard? It's, like, hard for young people in journalism. Even with fancy j-schools on their resume, that first gig is tough to come by. And even when you do get on the first rung of your ladder to media conglomerate slavery, the going just doesn't get any easier. Can you believe? Hardship in this industry?!

CONTINUED »