The New York Times' David Carr chronicles the extensive effort by NBC's The Today Show to make right on an audio editing mistake that created an error.

The clip left the impression that George Zimmerman, charged with second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin, uttered racist statements. The Today Show fired or disciplined several employees and issued a statement apologizing.

What it didn't do, Carr noted, was tell its audience it had erred. Carr examines the case as an example of American television culture about correcting the record.

"Give NBC credit for dealing with a big error that threatened to sow further mayhem on a very delicate story," he wrote. "It’s just too bad it failed to remember that the fix for bad journalism generally includes more journalism. The kind that goes on the air."

Add Comment
 
 
In his latest The Media Equation column, The New York Times' David Carr notes the problem of the "burped up" thought that is Twitter, particularly when it intersects with professional expectations.

Carr cites the recent suspension of CNN's Roland Martin following a Tweet during last week's Super Bowl. Carr writes a thoughtful and self-deprecating look at the challenge of using social media when his employer has high standards. The instant judgment isn't always congruent with the overall judgment.

He concludes that 140 characters makes it difficult to be journalistic, even if it is fun and even if is a requirement.
 
 
In recent days a debate has surfaced on the ethics of TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington and his new fund for start-up companies. The specific issue: How can Arrington continue to write for TechCrunch (now owned by AOL) when he has venture capital (some of it AOL's) in the mix.

As it turns out, he has gone to the sidelines.

But the handling of his case and its implications have stirred a healthy discussion in the craft about conflicts of interest, preferential treatment, and whether there are new boundaries emerging of acceptable practice. In the midst of this, the head of AOL has suggested TechCrunch might have had different standards than its journalistic outlets.

The latest to weigh in is the media columnist for the New York Times, David Carr, whose writing today is withering on most everyone involved. Carr mainly registers disbelief the situation got this far, but he identifies the central problems for journalism as it deals with new challenges in reporting on technology.
 
 
The New York Times' David Carr has a take --- and a relatively negative one at that --- on Rupert Murdoch's plan to create a firewall and charge for online content at his newspaper Web sites.

Carr said he's personally unlikely to pay for something he now consumes free and expects other consumers are in the same place and space. But he does ask if Murdoch has one more revolution left in him.

While no expects a full firewall around all of the News Corp. content, Carr believes Murdoch will have difficulty generalizing the narrower successes now experienced at his Wall Street Journal and the rival Financial Times.

"The deeper problem for Mr. Murdoch and every other newspaper owner is that although the revenue picture for newspapers has changed considerably in the last two years, the consumer is still stuck on zero when it comes to what he or she will pay for the vast majority of content," he writes.
 
 

Howls are already in the blogosphere over David Carr's column today in the New York Times on news needing an iTunes model --- a way to get people accustomed to getting content free to suddenly pay for it.

The premise that advertising is going to pay for the content is increasingly under attack. What Carr wonders is if something can rearrange the dynamic sufficiently to pay for news.

Most of the criticism of the idea will be obvious: News is not the durable good that music is, so the notion of paying for something you might use only once isn't all that attractive to consumers. Like music, too, there is an abundance of free content that isn't likely to go back into the premium stable.

It's interesting how many people won't reopen the idea of pay-for-view. Their view is that the debate is long over.

 
 

The New York Times' David Carr provides an analogy in his latest column between newspapers and Circuit City, the collapsing electronics giant in the U.S. His view is that a lot of high-priced talent is being jettisoned as America's newspapers restructure their editorial operations. He points to examples of prominent columnists, reporters and managers being let go in some markets and asks if this is a slow-motion suicide.

 
DA25E68FDEC14EAFA7B2A27D26C48058