It deserves attention that the best nightly newscast got a tip the other day from a prominent New York gossip and political blog.
No, it was nothing huge. Gawker.com posted a clip of the Manhattan Bridge wobbling up and down as the subway raced underneath, video that appeared on the NBC Nightly News later that day. Brian Williams, because he's awesome, used the show's blog to credit the blog, something he did not do on the newscast.
Ever since Fark.com began providing fodder for every single morning zoo crew radio show, blogs have been great at catching things the mainstream media misses. By being so specialized in what they do, they dig up old archival footage and watch more C-SPAN than anyone should ever be required to do. In this case, Gawker posted a YouTube clip and made it prominent.
Then again, now that ABC World News is featuring Pitchfork writers to discuss new indie albums, maybe it's just another trend of an old media trying to stay alive by latching on to the new successful thing. Kinda like a parasite.
-30-
Brian Williams probably loves the weekly Gossip Girl updates
If you're in to odd news that gets a bit boring sometimes
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Born in the USA
One of my favorite quotes on journalism comes, unsurprisingly, from Hunter Thompson. As the good doctor was eulogizing his mortal enemy Richard Nixon, he lamented the idea of a completely objective press.
---
"Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism -- which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful."
---
It's a great point to keep in mind when writing. Of course the most important thing is to be factually accurate and fair, nothing else matters nearly as much. But Thompson's argument that some things are so preposterous that reporters need to shut off their sense of emotionless coverage is an interesting one.
That, in a nutshell, is how I feel about the birther movement. For those of you who have better things to do than follow such trivial matters, it's a little movement questioning whether Barack Obama was really born in this country. The then Senator Obama campaign produced a newspaper birth announcement and certificate of live birth -- not a birth certificate, if we're getting down to brass tacks -- but the outrage continues.
The media, however, have treated their arguments quite condescendingly. Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly and, most emphatically, Chris Matthews (linked below) have all said this is a stupid story that only lives because it falls into the story that Obama is a socialist. Granted, these people give their opinions and are not journalists, but the fact that newspapers haven't really touched this story until recently shows their disdain for it. When Lou Dobbs heard Obama could be an immigrant, he went for the kill.
Of course this whole news story is ridiculous, it's probably not even news. The problem is that journalists have this Utopian idea of complete impartiality, but they're looking down on something that is a genuine concern for a large group of people. Does it give reporters -- not columnists -- the right to call out a movement as dumb and wrong? If so, it opens up a whole can of worms where maybe we could have pointed out Nixon like Thompson wanted. But then the New York Times looks even more liberal and ethics could be out the window.
It comes down to personal decisions by those up top, and to decide a certain theory is so dumb that it doesn't deserve attention and promotion in your newspaper, then that's fair. I still feel like media condescension toward a large group (idiotic and news-hating as it is) is far from constructive when we're trying to serve our audience.
-30-
Great eulogy of Nixon by the Good Doctor
G. Gordon Liddy is a crazy man, believe it or not.
---
"Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism -- which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful."
---
It's a great point to keep in mind when writing. Of course the most important thing is to be factually accurate and fair, nothing else matters nearly as much. But Thompson's argument that some things are so preposterous that reporters need to shut off their sense of emotionless coverage is an interesting one.
That, in a nutshell, is how I feel about the birther movement. For those of you who have better things to do than follow such trivial matters, it's a little movement questioning whether Barack Obama was really born in this country. The then Senator Obama campaign produced a newspaper birth announcement and certificate of live birth -- not a birth certificate, if we're getting down to brass tacks -- but the outrage continues.
The media, however, have treated their arguments quite condescendingly. Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly and, most emphatically, Chris Matthews (linked below) have all said this is a stupid story that only lives because it falls into the story that Obama is a socialist. Granted, these people give their opinions and are not journalists, but the fact that newspapers haven't really touched this story until recently shows their disdain for it. When Lou Dobbs heard Obama could be an immigrant, he went for the kill.
Of course this whole news story is ridiculous, it's probably not even news. The problem is that journalists have this Utopian idea of complete impartiality, but they're looking down on something that is a genuine concern for a large group of people. Does it give reporters -- not columnists -- the right to call out a movement as dumb and wrong? If so, it opens up a whole can of worms where maybe we could have pointed out Nixon like Thompson wanted. But then the New York Times looks even more liberal and ethics could be out the window.
It comes down to personal decisions by those up top, and to decide a certain theory is so dumb that it doesn't deserve attention and promotion in your newspaper, then that's fair. I still feel like media condescension toward a large group (idiotic and news-hating as it is) is far from constructive when we're trying to serve our audience.
-30-
Great eulogy of Nixon by the Good Doctor
G. Gordon Liddy is a crazy man, believe it or not.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Hunting Bears
A great headline always brightens my day. Granted this is no "Top Cop Admits Hanky Panky," "Sleep Specialist Lives the Dream," "Headless Body in Topless Bar" or "Dewey Defeats Truman," but it's pretty enjoyable.
-30-
"Bear-Proof Can Is Pop-Top Picnic for a Crafty Thief"
-30-
"Bear-Proof Can Is Pop-Top Picnic for a Crafty Thief"
Monday, July 27, 2009
So Says I
It's true that when the New York Times says something is a trend, it officially is. Sometimes the paper of record is a little slow to the party, Twitter comes to mind, but the Times often uses its clout to do fine stories on what newfangled thing the kids are up to these days. Other times, they just rely on anecdotes to suggest an activity is much more important than it really is.
Take for instance this story published recently, "Home Burials Offer an Intimate Alternative," about how supposedly more people are laying their loved ones to rest in their back yards. I don't know anyone who does this, and I kinda doubt you do too. Between the two of us, that's a lot of people who aren't being buried at home. Instead, the Times found a few people who really believed this was a good idea and added just enough stats to make the thing publishable, weird as the story is.
I love when the Times presents strange trends people enjoy just because, but stuff like this should not be treated as if it were a popular alternative. This isn't a profile, but an article on something seen as an up and coming method. As per ususal, here's the money 'graph.
---
Advocates say the number of home funerals, where everything from caring for the dead to the visiting hours to the building of the coffin is done at home, has soared in the last five years, putting the funerals “where home births were 30 years ago,” according to Chuck Lakin, a home funeral proponent and coffin builder in Waterville, Me.
---
Finding someone who supports any unusual idea is not difficult, but the Times suggests that this story is much more than a collection of those people. Such is the life of leading the national media.
-30-
A clever shot at journalism from a Web site known for such things.
This fits that writeup pretty well, I think
Take for instance this story published recently, "Home Burials Offer an Intimate Alternative," about how supposedly more people are laying their loved ones to rest in their back yards. I don't know anyone who does this, and I kinda doubt you do too. Between the two of us, that's a lot of people who aren't being buried at home. Instead, the Times found a few people who really believed this was a good idea and added just enough stats to make the thing publishable, weird as the story is.
I love when the Times presents strange trends people enjoy just because, but stuff like this should not be treated as if it were a popular alternative. This isn't a profile, but an article on something seen as an up and coming method. As per ususal, here's the money 'graph.
---
Advocates say the number of home funerals, where everything from caring for the dead to the visiting hours to the building of the coffin is done at home, has soared in the last five years, putting the funerals “where home births were 30 years ago,” according to Chuck Lakin, a home funeral proponent and coffin builder in Waterville, Me.
---
Finding someone who supports any unusual idea is not difficult, but the Times suggests that this story is much more than a collection of those people. Such is the life of leading the national media.
-30-
A clever shot at journalism from a Web site known for such things.
This fits that writeup pretty well, I think
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Streets of Philadelphia
Ever since I was a kid, I never understood why the national sports media picked on Philadelphia. Boston and New York fans yelled racist and homophobic slurs at even their own players. Chicago fans complained all the time. Miami fans saw two World Series championships for the Marlins in a decade and still don't show up. Etc., etc. That stuff is hardly mentioned. But Philly booed a drunken Santa Claus at an Eagles game. Yep. 40 years ago. Stuart Scott and Michael Wilbon reference it to this day.
This narrative, like many in the media, played out over and over again. The City of Brotherly Love is hard on rich athletes. They booed McNabb when he was drafted. Eric Lindros and Scott Rolen couldn't take the heat. Hugely separate events were forced into feeding this monster, no matter if the media were cramming square pegs in round holes or not. It had to continue, because, well, it did for years before.
But only a few hours ago a gentleman was beaten to death in the Phillies' parking lot. Details, obviously, are few at the moment, but the fantastic Philadelphia Inquirer is reporting that he was celebrating his bachelor's party at McFadden's (a bar connected to the outside of the stadium that you do not need tickets to enter) and he was beaten to death without any weapons. Arrests are supposed to come soon.
And with that, everything starts again. The media will speculate, perhaps arguing over how far team fandom should go. The city will get another black eye. The bar will be faced with questions about why it didn't do more to stop it. The Phillies might be blamed for allowing anything like this to even start in their own back yard right after an afternoon game. But really, all it comes down to is few could imagine the grief of losing a future spouse at his bachelor's party for God knows what reason.
This is an embarrassment, it really is.
-30-
Breaking news, we'll see what happens
This narrative, like many in the media, played out over and over again. The City of Brotherly Love is hard on rich athletes. They booed McNabb when he was drafted. Eric Lindros and Scott Rolen couldn't take the heat. Hugely separate events were forced into feeding this monster, no matter if the media were cramming square pegs in round holes or not. It had to continue, because, well, it did for years before.
But only a few hours ago a gentleman was beaten to death in the Phillies' parking lot. Details, obviously, are few at the moment, but the fantastic Philadelphia Inquirer is reporting that he was celebrating his bachelor's party at McFadden's (a bar connected to the outside of the stadium that you do not need tickets to enter) and he was beaten to death without any weapons. Arrests are supposed to come soon.
And with that, everything starts again. The media will speculate, perhaps arguing over how far team fandom should go. The city will get another black eye. The bar will be faced with questions about why it didn't do more to stop it. The Phillies might be blamed for allowing anything like this to even start in their own back yard right after an afternoon game. But really, all it comes down to is few could imagine the grief of losing a future spouse at his bachelor's party for God knows what reason.
This is an embarrassment, it really is.
-30-
Breaking news, we'll see what happens
I Turn My Camera On
I've never had the opportunity to see a newspaper printing press in person, a fact that I did not give much thought until stumbling on the cool Flickr page below. Not having this opportunity is hardly rare, but it's such a strange gap in what we do. Working to put copy in the newspaper and knowing just about nothing of what happens after we finish our job seems strange, like turning on the faucet and knowing water will come out.
Although, I'm a bit worried I'll leave the place wondering how this model of employing huge and expensive machinery to rush outdated news to newsstands has possibly sustained itself for so long. It could make for a depressing tour.
-30-
An impressive Flickr
-Via Gawker
Although, I'm a bit worried I'll leave the place wondering how this model of employing huge and expensive machinery to rush outdated news to newsstands has possibly sustained itself for so long. It could make for a depressing tour.
-30-
An impressive Flickr
-Via Gawker
Dog on Fire
Just one more Cronkite point. It looks like the online readers of Time magazine weighed in on who they trust the most.
The kids love their Jon Stewart Leibowitz.
-30-
Skewed stats are still stats, right?
The kids love their Jon Stewart Leibowitz.
-30-
Skewed stats are still stats, right?
The Bass and The Movement
Say what you want about talk show host (...journalist?) Mike Huckabee, but he's quite the boring bassist when jamming with guests on his Fox News show. Constantly watching the frets and simply playing roots. No stage presence.
Probably best to retire any segment of a show named after you that just looks like it's being done for ego. Laying down bass lines with former American Idol contestants doesn't add credibility to those strong rants against gay marriage and abortion, even if the two segments are separated by a commercial break. Points for trying, I guess.
-30-
Maybe not the best example, but probably the oddest.
Probably best to retire any segment of a show named after you that just looks like it's being done for ego. Laying down bass lines with former American Idol contestants doesn't add credibility to those strong rants against gay marriage and abortion, even if the two segments are separated by a commercial break. Points for trying, I guess.
-30-
Maybe not the best example, but probably the oddest.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Mr. Me Too
Coincidentally or not, this weekend played host to two self-congratulatory events put on by the biggest news outlets in their fields. How they can promote these shows and still claim to objectively cover those who attend is beyond me.
Let's start with Pitchfork Fest. In just a few years of existence, this festival has put on stellar lineups each and every time. This year, it featured Yo La Tengo, Flaming Lips, Grizzly Bear and The National, all great bands the notoriously harsh Web site has reviewed in the past. Even the tickets are quite cheap for a weekend of shows in Chicago.
I'd like to think bands could simply be picked for the show because the powers that be behind Pitchfork enjoy their music, but the truth of the matter is that a great review on that Web site makes a huge difference. It happens to decide popular indie culture at the moment, and many bands would kill for a good review from the fickle writers. Not that I blame the site, bumping an album up from a 7.1 to a 8.3 on a completely arbitrary scale rating one of the most subjective things in the world must seem incredibly tempting if it could land a big musician for the fest. Much as I think Pitchfork puts on a great festival, I don't see how it's worth calling into question the authenticity of its reviews.
Same goes for ESPN's annual ESPY awards. The Worldwide Leader throws itself an...award show? Athletes show up and listen to awkward jokes by a host who doesn't really want to be there. This year, Samuel L. Jackson took on the role rather well. There's no way something so congratulatory could be worth it to the network. The awards just don't mean anything, and seem to alternate between voted on by fans or sportswriters. If an ESPY goes on the mantle of a professional athlete, well, he's probably Luke Walton.
Maybe both ESPN and Pitchfork really can completely separate their editorial and advertising departments, to which I would commend their ethics if true. But the fact remains that these are supposed to be journalism outlets, and should not be so caught up with who how many big names they can get to pal around for their big event.
Let's start with Pitchfork Fest. In just a few years of existence, this festival has put on stellar lineups each and every time. This year, it featured Yo La Tengo, Flaming Lips, Grizzly Bear and The National, all great bands the notoriously harsh Web site has reviewed in the past. Even the tickets are quite cheap for a weekend of shows in Chicago.
I'd like to think bands could simply be picked for the show because the powers that be behind Pitchfork enjoy their music, but the truth of the matter is that a great review on that Web site makes a huge difference. It happens to decide popular indie culture at the moment, and many bands would kill for a good review from the fickle writers. Not that I blame the site, bumping an album up from a 7.1 to a 8.3 on a completely arbitrary scale rating one of the most subjective things in the world must seem incredibly tempting if it could land a big musician for the fest. Much as I think Pitchfork puts on a great festival, I don't see how it's worth calling into question the authenticity of its reviews.
Same goes for ESPN's annual ESPY awards. The Worldwide Leader throws itself an...award show? Athletes show up and listen to awkward jokes by a host who doesn't really want to be there. This year, Samuel L. Jackson took on the role rather well. There's no way something so congratulatory could be worth it to the network. The awards just don't mean anything, and seem to alternate between voted on by fans or sportswriters. If an ESPY goes on the mantle of a professional athlete, well, he's probably Luke Walton.
Maybe both ESPN and Pitchfork really can completely separate their editorial and advertising departments, to which I would commend their ethics if true. But the fact remains that these are supposed to be journalism outlets, and should not be so caught up with who how many big names they can get to pal around for their big event.
Jesus Christ Pose
One last thing the eulogies of Walter Cronkite reminded me of during these past few days was that he was the last journalist which everyone took what he said as gospel. That when he reported on the news, those were the facts, and to dispute it would be heresy.
Good. Journalists make mistakes. Some are biased, some push an agenda, but most simply err like everyone else. When someone sits in a cable news studio, talking over a looped clip of a tragedy that just happened a thousand miles away, do viewers believe that person's assessment? Or do they realize that 24 hours is a lot of time to fill each day and that person is just doing a job? I hope it's the latter.
The quicker we move away from an authoritative voice recapping the day's events, the better. News is far from black and white.
-30-
If you wanted your eulogies in 140 characters or less, here you go.
Good. Journalists make mistakes. Some are biased, some push an agenda, but most simply err like everyone else. When someone sits in a cable news studio, talking over a looped clip of a tragedy that just happened a thousand miles away, do viewers believe that person's assessment? Or do they realize that 24 hours is a lot of time to fill each day and that person is just doing a job? I hope it's the latter.
The quicker we move away from an authoritative voice recapping the day's events, the better. News is far from black and white.
-30-
If you wanted your eulogies in 140 characters or less, here you go.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
When you're back in your old neighborhood, the cigarettes taste so good
I like to think we can all agree, no matter your worldview, that there are more pressing issues than our president smoking. In between his two active wars, sinking economy, health care reform and pulling this country with all his might toward socialism, I don't mind if Obama sneaks outside for a cigarette.
So no, I don't understand why we're still pressing this topic. This question has come up when Obama signed a law making light cigarettes harder to market as well as just the other day during an interview on health care reform. Not only is it a stretch, but the answer doesn't matter.
Here's Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC News' chief medical editor, not missing the opportunity to ask a question no one cares about and has repeatedly produced a non-answer. How'd it go? You be the judge.
---
Snyderman: Mr. President, I know you hate this, but really, is the battle with the cigarettes going OK? I'd be remiss as a cancer surgeon not to ask you how you're doing.
Obama: I'm doing quite well, thank you.
---
That's it.
Perhaps the media do have the right to inquire about the president's health, but no more than how he did in a physical. Sure he and his office are funded by taxpayers' money, it just doesn't matter if he dies in 20 years from emphysema. Health is supposed to be a private matter, even for the president. If anything, I'm happy he has a vice in between some heavy stress.
-30-
NBC Nightly News interview with Barack Obama
So no, I don't understand why we're still pressing this topic. This question has come up when Obama signed a law making light cigarettes harder to market as well as just the other day during an interview on health care reform. Not only is it a stretch, but the answer doesn't matter.
Here's Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC News' chief medical editor, not missing the opportunity to ask a question no one cares about and has repeatedly produced a non-answer. How'd it go? You be the judge.
---
Snyderman: Mr. President, I know you hate this, but really, is the battle with the cigarettes going OK? I'd be remiss as a cancer surgeon not to ask you how you're doing.
Obama: I'm doing quite well, thank you.
---
That's it.
Perhaps the media do have the right to inquire about the president's health, but no more than how he did in a physical. Sure he and his office are funded by taxpayers' money, it just doesn't matter if he dies in 20 years from emphysema. Health is supposed to be a private matter, even for the president. If anything, I'm happy he has a vice in between some heavy stress.
-30-
NBC Nightly News interview with Barack Obama
One of these things first
Covering traffic deaths is not the least bit pleasant. For one, you're writing about a fatal accident, which, although it comes with the job, never seems to get much easier. On a pragmatic and detached level, the stories are always lacking because there's rarely more than a police report to simply rewrite. The details are just never there.
Considering this, it's time to enact the ol' funnel method of journalism. That is, of course, a lede and then the very most important facts. The remainders will fill out the story.
Here's the beginning to Jeannette Scott's story on a fatal car crash that ran on the front page of today's Lancaster Sunday News, an example of how not to write it up.
-
"One person was killed and two others injured when a pickup truck towing a trailer collided with a car in Providence Township at about 3:30 p.m. Saturday.
"The driver of the truck, Michael M. Murphy, 53, Drumore, was southbound on Route 272 when the driver of a Chrysler PT Cruiser, Pauline M. Shuffelbottom, 79, Willow Street, pulled out into the truck's path from Mount Hope School Road, state police at Lancaster said.
"Shuffelbottom was attempting to cross traffic to turn into the northbound lane of Route 272, police said.
She died at the scene."
-
This may seem to scrutinizing, but it's so imperative when announcing the deaths of individuals to get the names of the deceased in the second 'graph. Especially, and I can't stress this enough, when it's a small community you're writing about.
Instead, the second 'graph leads up with Murphy, his age, hometown, what direction he was going in and the make and model of his car before the deceased is mention. And then, it's two more 'graphs before we find out which of the two were killed in the accident.
If you don't give the reader the name of who died in the story right away, he or she will just skim the story looking for it.
-30-
Jeannette Scott's writeup of the crash
Considering this, it's time to enact the ol' funnel method of journalism. That is, of course, a lede and then the very most important facts. The remainders will fill out the story.
Here's the beginning to Jeannette Scott's story on a fatal car crash that ran on the front page of today's Lancaster Sunday News, an example of how not to write it up.
-
"One person was killed and two others injured when a pickup truck towing a trailer collided with a car in Providence Township at about 3:30 p.m. Saturday.
"The driver of the truck, Michael M. Murphy, 53, Drumore, was southbound on Route 272 when the driver of a Chrysler PT Cruiser, Pauline M. Shuffelbottom, 79, Willow Street, pulled out into the truck's path from Mount Hope School Road, state police at Lancaster said.
"Shuffelbottom was attempting to cross traffic to turn into the northbound lane of Route 272, police said.
She died at the scene."
-
This may seem to scrutinizing, but it's so imperative when announcing the deaths of individuals to get the names of the deceased in the second 'graph. Especially, and I can't stress this enough, when it's a small community you're writing about.
Instead, the second 'graph leads up with Murphy, his age, hometown, what direction he was going in and the make and model of his car before the deceased is mention. And then, it's two more 'graphs before we find out which of the two were killed in the accident.
If you don't give the reader the name of who died in the story right away, he or she will just skim the story looking for it.
-30-
Jeannette Scott's writeup of the crash
The Man Who Sold The World
I may never understand the coverage of celebrity's deaths.
More than three weeks after Michael Jackson's death, his spirit still lives on in the 24-hour news cycle. Now come reports that LaToya Jackson may have told British tabloid News of the World that her brother was murdered.
It's a weird and sad story, to be sure. News of Michael Jackson's death ran prominently on the front page of the New York Times, and rightfully so. His death was compelling news, which is to say, millions cared about the event that happened somewhat recently and wanted more information on it.
Billy Mays also died at 50 years old, a mere three days after Jackson. Many fewer people cared about his death, but wasn't it more important than the two or three days of media coverage he received?
I think this is another case of the media guessing who is important, but there's a disconnect. With all sincerity, I'd argue that Mays' death at 50 deserved at least a few days more of attention. Whatever your opinion of him, you can't argue he was one of the most recognizable people on television, this country's favorite medium. That beard and constant yelling were on commercials all the time. There should have been interviews with doctors about what caused his heart attack and a series of features on how the audience can avoid such a fate. People care about very few things, but their own health is one of them.
Here's another example of the media deciding which famous deaths go to the next level. When Tim Russert died a little more than a year ago, everything stopped. The news channels discussed it for days on end, presumably because he was one of them and died while on the job. I idolized Russert like everyone else, but then Senators Barack Obama and John McCain attended his funeral and it included a performance via satellite by Bruce Springsteen. Obviously Cronkite's old age keeps the sadness pretty limited, but he still had a huge effect on how great journalism is done. I have a feeling his name will be kicked out in the cycle soon.
So what then keeps a story in the news? I was so sure when I first heard the news of Jackson's death that it wouldn't still be a relevant topic. For as big as he was, he might as well have been dead for years considering how little we heard from him recently. My guess is that the media, trying to move away from out of touch and toward living on, are looking at connecting to what people care about. Rather than actually working too hard on this, they check the blogs as an indicator of what matters to normal people. That would mean blogs play a huge role in the direction of this country's media, which may or may not be a good thing. It's probably pretty bad.
In a slightly related topic, this will never fail to make me laugh:
"BILLY MAYS HERE FOR CAPS LOCK, THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL."
-30-
McKees Rocks, Pa's finest, Billy Mays
More than three weeks after Michael Jackson's death, his spirit still lives on in the 24-hour news cycle. Now come reports that LaToya Jackson may have told British tabloid News of the World that her brother was murdered.
It's a weird and sad story, to be sure. News of Michael Jackson's death ran prominently on the front page of the New York Times, and rightfully so. His death was compelling news, which is to say, millions cared about the event that happened somewhat recently and wanted more information on it.
Billy Mays also died at 50 years old, a mere three days after Jackson. Many fewer people cared about his death, but wasn't it more important than the two or three days of media coverage he received?
I think this is another case of the media guessing who is important, but there's a disconnect. With all sincerity, I'd argue that Mays' death at 50 deserved at least a few days more of attention. Whatever your opinion of him, you can't argue he was one of the most recognizable people on television, this country's favorite medium. That beard and constant yelling were on commercials all the time. There should have been interviews with doctors about what caused his heart attack and a series of features on how the audience can avoid such a fate. People care about very few things, but their own health is one of them.
Here's another example of the media deciding which famous deaths go to the next level. When Tim Russert died a little more than a year ago, everything stopped. The news channels discussed it for days on end, presumably because he was one of them and died while on the job. I idolized Russert like everyone else, but then Senators Barack Obama and John McCain attended his funeral and it included a performance via satellite by Bruce Springsteen. Obviously Cronkite's old age keeps the sadness pretty limited, but he still had a huge effect on how great journalism is done. I have a feeling his name will be kicked out in the cycle soon.
So what then keeps a story in the news? I was so sure when I first heard the news of Jackson's death that it wouldn't still be a relevant topic. For as big as he was, he might as well have been dead for years considering how little we heard from him recently. My guess is that the media, trying to move away from out of touch and toward living on, are looking at connecting to what people care about. Rather than actually working too hard on this, they check the blogs as an indicator of what matters to normal people. That would mean blogs play a huge role in the direction of this country's media, which may or may not be a good thing. It's probably pretty bad.
In a slightly related topic, this will never fail to make me laugh:
"BILLY MAYS HERE FOR CAPS LOCK, THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL."
-30-
McKees Rocks, Pa's finest, Billy Mays
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Quick and to the Pointless
Besides starting anything with "According to Meriam-Webster, ____ is defined as..." there's nothing lazier than a column listing random thoughts. Unless these musings are both amazingly witty or thoughtful in scope, they require a context. Anything less is either hugely arrogant or dumb, with nothing of value being said in either case. And really, that's my problem with Twitter.
Arguing about Twitter isn't easy, because its fans are pretty devout. They will defend the microblogging tool as a way to spread information, see what trends are picking up steam and often take you to task for "not using it right." All that may be true, but I don't buy it as anything more than learning stuff about friends without talking to them.
For those who want to argue the Web site offers something of value, they often point to the news it circulates. But even that doesn't hold up. Almost every news source has a Twitter, I suppose as a way of saying they are doing "new media," as little as it may be. Almost all of these accounts, however, literally post link to the stories with the headline in the post. That totals zero original content, i.e., what's the point?
If it were used productively by the media, I think we would be on to something. But if they simply update a dozen times a day with a link to the original story, doesn't that just make Twitter a more colorful RSS aggregator? Like most popular pages, they simply use it for self-promotion.
The other newsy argument for Twitter is that it breaks news. That argument still doesn't address how it's breaking news if you can't trust it half the time. Michael Jackson dying was huge, yes, but getting the same, and I stress this, unverified message over and over isn't much better than not hearing any news at all. In fact, it's just as useless. If a dozen friends told me that Michael Jackson died, and a dozen told me Jeff Goldblum died, we have an accuracy rate of 50 percent. Maybe it's just me, but I think we can do better.
By my count, there are a few events Twitter users keep citing as examples of its new found importance. There were the Iranian Elections, the Mumbai attacks, the celebrity deaths recently and that plane landing in the Hudson River. All of those, except maybe the Iranian Elections, provided few completely accurate details by mostly unverified sources very quickly. I don't want to spend my time looking at countless messages and sifting for accurate information. If it's a choice between that and holding out a bit for news I can at least sorta trust, I'll wait the extra 20 minutes.
Plus, Shaq's Twitter has been boring for months now.
-30-
A list of the most followed Twittererses
Here's my local paper's Twitter
Here's the New York Times' Twitter, almost entirely the same, just more of its own articles to post
Arguing about Twitter isn't easy, because its fans are pretty devout. They will defend the microblogging tool as a way to spread information, see what trends are picking up steam and often take you to task for "not using it right." All that may be true, but I don't buy it as anything more than learning stuff about friends without talking to them.
For those who want to argue the Web site offers something of value, they often point to the news it circulates. But even that doesn't hold up. Almost every news source has a Twitter, I suppose as a way of saying they are doing "new media," as little as it may be. Almost all of these accounts, however, literally post link to the stories with the headline in the post. That totals zero original content, i.e., what's the point?
If it were used productively by the media, I think we would be on to something. But if they simply update a dozen times a day with a link to the original story, doesn't that just make Twitter a more colorful RSS aggregator? Like most popular pages, they simply use it for self-promotion.
The other newsy argument for Twitter is that it breaks news. That argument still doesn't address how it's breaking news if you can't trust it half the time. Michael Jackson dying was huge, yes, but getting the same, and I stress this, unverified message over and over isn't much better than not hearing any news at all. In fact, it's just as useless. If a dozen friends told me that Michael Jackson died, and a dozen told me Jeff Goldblum died, we have an accuracy rate of 50 percent. Maybe it's just me, but I think we can do better.
By my count, there are a few events Twitter users keep citing as examples of its new found importance. There were the Iranian Elections, the Mumbai attacks, the celebrity deaths recently and that plane landing in the Hudson River. All of those, except maybe the Iranian Elections, provided few completely accurate details by mostly unverified sources very quickly. I don't want to spend my time looking at countless messages and sifting for accurate information. If it's a choice between that and holding out a bit for news I can at least sorta trust, I'll wait the extra 20 minutes.
Plus, Shaq's Twitter has been boring for months now.
-30-
A list of the most followed Twittererses
Here's my local paper's Twitter
Here's the New York Times' Twitter, almost entirely the same, just more of its own articles to post
There There
As of this writing, "Why We Must Ration Health Care" is the most read story on the New York Times Web site. It also contains a couple of grammatical errors. If you can follow me for a bit on on the boring stuff, maybe we can share some thoughts at the end.
The New York Times, a big deal, some would say, publishes a very good weekly magazine on Sunday. Its features are often strong and there's usually an essay unique enough to keep my interest. The magazine is a free insert that's treated very seriously, which is why any bush league grammatical mistake is incredibly surprising.
In Peter Singer's 166 inch, 5,100 word, 41 'graph essay in the most recent New York Times Magazine on providing health care to all, a few words boldly stuck out to me, and not because they added greatly to his argument. Let's go to the 'graph in question.
--
"There’s no doubt that it’s tough — politically, emotionally and ethically — to make a decision that means that someone will die sooner than they would have if the decision had gone the other way. But if the stories of Bruce Hardy and Jack Rosser lead us to think badly of the British system of rationing health care, we should remind ourselves that the U.S. system also results in people going without life-saving treatment — it just does so less visibly. Pharmaceutical manufacturers often charge much more for drugs in the United States than they charge for the same drugs in Britain, where they know that a higher price would put the drug outside the cost-effectiveness limits set by NICE. American patients, even if they are covered by Medicare or Medicaid, often cannot afford the copayments for drugs. That’s rationing too, by ability to pay."
--
In that block of text that dragged for a bit, rather symbolic of the story, there is a morsel I'd like to point out.
--
"There’s no doubt that it’s tough — politically, emotionally and ethically — to make a decision that means that someone will die sooner than they would have if the decision had gone the other way. But if the stories of Bruce Hardy and Jack Rosser lead us to think badly of the British system..."
--
There. In the first sentence, Singer writes about a singular person in the hypothetical sense. "Someone," so any one person, would die sooner than "THEY" would have. As cool as our language is, it lacks a singular person pronoun. "They" is often used in place, despite the fact it is always plural.
Here's the kicker, in the next sentence, Singer writes that two individuals' stories cause us to "think BADLY of the British system." This, as is some weird rule to the language, implies that we do the act of thinking, poorly. It does not mean we think either good or bad things, just that the process of our thinking isn't done to a satisfactory job.
Alright, now that enough background is thrown out there, let's talk. Language is constantly growing and evolving. The clearest example of this is the dozens of words added each year to the dictionary, but there are also more subtle events, such as using "they" as a gender-neutral term.
We all have our grammatical pet peeves. I cringe every single time the subjunctive mood (that the plural should be used in the hypothetical, like "I wish I WERE going to the store) isn't used properly, but it's more of a personal thing. To ever bring it up would obviously grate anyone you talk to.
It goes without saying that everyone understood what Singer was getting at, even with these terms being misused. In conversation, these mistakes are made constantly and no one bats an eye, but I expect more from the Times' magazine. Perhaps they just didn't catch everything in such a massive story, and that would make sense.
Still, such mistakes, even small ones in a very long story, take away some credibility. Not much, granted, but Singer is a professor at Princeton with a team of the best copy editors in the world checking over a magazine that comes out once a week. These mistakes just shouldn't happen.
-30-
The fantastic essay, although maybe a bit long, on why health care reform rests on our ability to not let everyone live so long.
The New York Times, a big deal, some would say, publishes a very good weekly magazine on Sunday. Its features are often strong and there's usually an essay unique enough to keep my interest. The magazine is a free insert that's treated very seriously, which is why any bush league grammatical mistake is incredibly surprising.
In Peter Singer's 166 inch, 5,100 word, 41 'graph essay in the most recent New York Times Magazine on providing health care to all, a few words boldly stuck out to me, and not because they added greatly to his argument. Let's go to the 'graph in question.
--
"There’s no doubt that it’s tough — politically, emotionally and ethically — to make a decision that means that someone will die sooner than they would have if the decision had gone the other way. But if the stories of Bruce Hardy and Jack Rosser lead us to think badly of the British system of rationing health care, we should remind ourselves that the U.S. system also results in people going without life-saving treatment — it just does so less visibly. Pharmaceutical manufacturers often charge much more for drugs in the United States than they charge for the same drugs in Britain, where they know that a higher price would put the drug outside the cost-effectiveness limits set by NICE. American patients, even if they are covered by Medicare or Medicaid, often cannot afford the copayments for drugs. That’s rationing too, by ability to pay."
--
In that block of text that dragged for a bit, rather symbolic of the story, there is a morsel I'd like to point out.
--
"There’s no doubt that it’s tough — politically, emotionally and ethically — to make a decision that means that someone will die sooner than they would have if the decision had gone the other way. But if the stories of Bruce Hardy and Jack Rosser lead us to think badly of the British system..."
--
There. In the first sentence, Singer writes about a singular person in the hypothetical sense. "Someone," so any one person, would die sooner than "THEY" would have. As cool as our language is, it lacks a singular person pronoun. "They" is often used in place, despite the fact it is always plural.
Here's the kicker, in the next sentence, Singer writes that two individuals' stories cause us to "think BADLY of the British system." This, as is some weird rule to the language, implies that we do the act of thinking, poorly. It does not mean we think either good or bad things, just that the process of our thinking isn't done to a satisfactory job.
Alright, now that enough background is thrown out there, let's talk. Language is constantly growing and evolving. The clearest example of this is the dozens of words added each year to the dictionary, but there are also more subtle events, such as using "they" as a gender-neutral term.
We all have our grammatical pet peeves. I cringe every single time the subjunctive mood (that the plural should be used in the hypothetical, like "I wish I WERE going to the store) isn't used properly, but it's more of a personal thing. To ever bring it up would obviously grate anyone you talk to.
It goes without saying that everyone understood what Singer was getting at, even with these terms being misused. In conversation, these mistakes are made constantly and no one bats an eye, but I expect more from the Times' magazine. Perhaps they just didn't catch everything in such a massive story, and that would make sense.
Still, such mistakes, even small ones in a very long story, take away some credibility. Not much, granted, but Singer is a professor at Princeton with a team of the best copy editors in the world checking over a magazine that comes out once a week. These mistakes just shouldn't happen.
-30-
The fantastic essay, although maybe a bit long, on why health care reform rests on our ability to not let everyone live so long.
Waitin' For a Superman
Walter Cronkite, probably the most recognizable journalist of the 20th century, died yesterday at 92. Among every obituary written years ago and published in today's papers with minor updates, was the high honor of Cronkite's nickname, "The Most Trusted Man In America."
Ever since I first heard the nickname, I've always wondered who is the most trusted man in America right now. I'd be hard pressed to think of better candidates than Jon Stewart, Brian Williams and Glenn Beck.
Williams is probably the most obvious choice. In a time where ego trumps anything else and each network makes ridiculous claims about its viewers (CNN supposedly has a bigger audience than MSNBC and Fox News combined and Bill O'Reilly went on a press tour just to promote his 100th straight month at number one), Williams quietly continues as the most watched late night news show. You actually get the impression he isn't doing the job to promote himself, which is so rare these days. His competition, the emotionless Charlie Gibson who always seemed more comfortable teaching his audience how to make baked carrot casserole, lags 800,000 viewers behind.
As the managing editor of NBC Nightly News, he does his job so effortlessly. That mix of compassion and insight is pretty incredible. Probably the most important factor in whether the country trusts a person is how comfortable and personable he is, something Williams excels at. In fact, Williams will make his 14th appearance on The Daily Show next week, a place he is just dryly funny on as Charlie Rose. Plus, in the spirit of corporate synergy, he hosted Saturday Night Live about as well as can be expected.
The Williams argument for this title is easy to make. He runs the most watched nightly news show and his insightful questions inside the studio and out suggest his title of managing editor is not honorary. The White House even let him in for nearly full access a few weeks back. When you want to discuss policy and events for the American people to hear, you go to Brian Williams.
But most probably wouldn't buy Stewart in this position, and I disagree. He's far from perfect, I think his crutch of asking serious questions but saying that he's only a comedian when he doesn't want to take responsibility for the response isn't quite sincere, but no man catches hypocrisy like him and his staff. As liberal as Stewart is, he skewers everyone and is one of the best watchdogs this country has. Unfortunately, only about a million and a half people watch the show each night, which is mighty small compared to all the critical acclaim and attention he gets. Without a huge audience, it's very hard to say he is the most trusted man in America.
As for Beck, well, no one else has tapped into such populist rage as that man. Despite the millions he makes from Fox News and his highly rated radio show, he is still followed by a huge chunk of this country who want plain-speakin' folk in power. They're sick of the huge debt Barack Obama put us in, and that's fair. No, it's not my cup of tea, but the huge rise Beck has made from a boring radio show and that dumb hour on CNN Headline News since Obama became president shows that he really is trusted. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly just missed capitalizing on hatred people have for high taxes and huge government programs to the huge extent Beck has, in part because a lot of people trust him as more real than those two. He's still miles away from funny, no matter how often he laughs at his own jokes.
Or maybe, the most trusted man in America is Barack Obama. I just hope a distinction of accountability that was once so visibly held by the country's leading journalist isn't passed on to a politician. Better him than Beck, though.
-30-
The famous clip of Cronkite announcing JFK's death
Brian Williams' moving obit of Cronkite on his fantastic blog, The Daily Nightly
Ever since I first heard the nickname, I've always wondered who is the most trusted man in America right now. I'd be hard pressed to think of better candidates than Jon Stewart, Brian Williams and Glenn Beck.
Williams is probably the most obvious choice. In a time where ego trumps anything else and each network makes ridiculous claims about its viewers (CNN supposedly has a bigger audience than MSNBC and Fox News combined and Bill O'Reilly went on a press tour just to promote his 100th straight month at number one), Williams quietly continues as the most watched late night news show. You actually get the impression he isn't doing the job to promote himself, which is so rare these days. His competition, the emotionless Charlie Gibson who always seemed more comfortable teaching his audience how to make baked carrot casserole, lags 800,000 viewers behind.
As the managing editor of NBC Nightly News, he does his job so effortlessly. That mix of compassion and insight is pretty incredible. Probably the most important factor in whether the country trusts a person is how comfortable and personable he is, something Williams excels at. In fact, Williams will make his 14th appearance on The Daily Show next week, a place he is just dryly funny on as Charlie Rose. Plus, in the spirit of corporate synergy, he hosted Saturday Night Live about as well as can be expected.
The Williams argument for this title is easy to make. He runs the most watched nightly news show and his insightful questions inside the studio and out suggest his title of managing editor is not honorary. The White House even let him in for nearly full access a few weeks back. When you want to discuss policy and events for the American people to hear, you go to Brian Williams.
But most probably wouldn't buy Stewart in this position, and I disagree. He's far from perfect, I think his crutch of asking serious questions but saying that he's only a comedian when he doesn't want to take responsibility for the response isn't quite sincere, but no man catches hypocrisy like him and his staff. As liberal as Stewart is, he skewers everyone and is one of the best watchdogs this country has. Unfortunately, only about a million and a half people watch the show each night, which is mighty small compared to all the critical acclaim and attention he gets. Without a huge audience, it's very hard to say he is the most trusted man in America.
As for Beck, well, no one else has tapped into such populist rage as that man. Despite the millions he makes from Fox News and his highly rated radio show, he is still followed by a huge chunk of this country who want plain-speakin' folk in power. They're sick of the huge debt Barack Obama put us in, and that's fair. No, it's not my cup of tea, but the huge rise Beck has made from a boring radio show and that dumb hour on CNN Headline News since Obama became president shows that he really is trusted. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly just missed capitalizing on hatred people have for high taxes and huge government programs to the huge extent Beck has, in part because a lot of people trust him as more real than those two. He's still miles away from funny, no matter how often he laughs at his own jokes.
Or maybe, the most trusted man in America is Barack Obama. I just hope a distinction of accountability that was once so visibly held by the country's leading journalist isn't passed on to a politician. Better him than Beck, though.
-30-
The famous clip of Cronkite announcing JFK's death
Brian Williams' moving obit of Cronkite on his fantastic blog, The Daily Nightly
Sunday, July 12, 2009
C.R.E.A.M.
Let's save the newspaper industry, shall we?
I'll spare you the standard gloom and doom statistics normally placed right here in the nut 'graph because the specifics don't really matter, especially at this point. Jobs are probably gone for good and newspapers that aren't shutting down are closing bureaus around the world. Most importantly, advertising revenue for Web sites, long since seen as the saving grace, is drying up quickly.
If you think about it, printing millions of newspapers every day on gigantic printing presses to be shipped around towns on gas-guzzling trucks so they can be out of date within a few hours of sitting in their depressing pile at 7-Eleven is a pretty horrid business model. Everyone seems to agree that this whole Internet route is the way to go.
Although it isn't news, The New York Times quietly announced this week that it's officially thinking about charging $5 per month to view its Web site. This model has been picking up steam for a while now as to how the paper should recoup some money, and probably the best idea I've seen so far. Paying for individual stories like iTunes songs wouldn't keep readers around, grants can't provide enough funds for a permanent solution, printing only two paragraphs of each story like the Athens Messenger does is just frustrating and government intervention would be a fishy combination even if most constituents didn't view the newspaper as a liberal rag.
This would be the Times' first experiment with charging for news content since 2007's TimesSelect, a bad idea that ran far too long. I actually had access to TimesSelect, a premium registration to read its columnists on the Times Web site. It was free with a college e-mail address and never worth the trouble of logging in. The columns were always copy and pasted somewhere else, and the whole half baked idea was scrapped within two years.
Watching borderline desperate ideas being tossed around to save a model that probably can't withstand itself, I just can't help but notice the similarities between the newspaper industry now and the Napster/Morpheus/Kazaa music downloading craze of about five years back. Both sides are now sharing not a tangible product, but an imitation of it. A story hurriedly posted online for free and a song mislabeled on peer2peer share that unfinished state that's good enough for the majority of users. The music industry never did much beyond sue, and now it's on the way out. But maybe riding out the storm isn't such a bad idea.
The sublime Ed Droste from Grizzly Bear spoke to Pitchfork the other day about his album leaking well before its release date last May and still debuting at #8 on the US Billboard charts. Allowing the public to share what they've done beforehand led to a huge success.
"There was literally no one, I can promise you, inside the label or anywhere who expected anything like it," he told the Web site that hipsters are starting to turn on. "Maybe top 50 or maybe sell half of what was sold, but that was a total fluke and surprise. I couldn't believe it, especially after the whole leak fiasco. I guess this goes to show that leaks don't necessarily hurt, so we should all just chill out."
The biggest risk with a straightforward pay wall is how many will stick around should the paper say that enough is enough, it has had it with these freeloaders on its Web site. Of the Times' Web sites' several million unique viewers each month, there's no doubt that a huge chunk of them would balk at paying a dime for something they had for free yesterday. I know I used to check the Messenger Web site quite a bit when full stories and archives were freely available, but it's now become a chore to look for new content on that horrid Web site. Then again, the Times' nickname isn't "The 'Mess," either.
If it came down to it, I probably would pay $5 per month for the Times online. The only reason I'm unsure is my college bookstore, Little Professor, charges $28 per quarter for the paper, Monday through Saturday. That's ten weeks of the actual paper edition, which is much preferred. Otherwise, of course I would, because good journalism is worth paying for. Good journalism also needs to be paid for, which, unfortunately, is why we're in this situation to begin with.
-30-
$5 per month for the Times?
I'll spare you the standard gloom and doom statistics normally placed right here in the nut 'graph because the specifics don't really matter, especially at this point. Jobs are probably gone for good and newspapers that aren't shutting down are closing bureaus around the world. Most importantly, advertising revenue for Web sites, long since seen as the saving grace, is drying up quickly.
If you think about it, printing millions of newspapers every day on gigantic printing presses to be shipped around towns on gas-guzzling trucks so they can be out of date within a few hours of sitting in their depressing pile at 7-Eleven is a pretty horrid business model. Everyone seems to agree that this whole Internet route is the way to go.
Although it isn't news, The New York Times quietly announced this week that it's officially thinking about charging $5 per month to view its Web site. This model has been picking up steam for a while now as to how the paper should recoup some money, and probably the best idea I've seen so far. Paying for individual stories like iTunes songs wouldn't keep readers around, grants can't provide enough funds for a permanent solution, printing only two paragraphs of each story like the Athens Messenger does is just frustrating and government intervention would be a fishy combination even if most constituents didn't view the newspaper as a liberal rag.
This would be the Times' first experiment with charging for news content since 2007's TimesSelect, a bad idea that ran far too long. I actually had access to TimesSelect, a premium registration to read its columnists on the Times Web site. It was free with a college e-mail address and never worth the trouble of logging in. The columns were always copy and pasted somewhere else, and the whole half baked idea was scrapped within two years.
Watching borderline desperate ideas being tossed around to save a model that probably can't withstand itself, I just can't help but notice the similarities between the newspaper industry now and the Napster/Morpheus/Kazaa music downloading craze of about five years back. Both sides are now sharing not a tangible product, but an imitation of it. A story hurriedly posted online for free and a song mislabeled on peer2peer share that unfinished state that's good enough for the majority of users. The music industry never did much beyond sue, and now it's on the way out. But maybe riding out the storm isn't such a bad idea.
The sublime Ed Droste from Grizzly Bear spoke to Pitchfork the other day about his album leaking well before its release date last May and still debuting at #8 on the US Billboard charts. Allowing the public to share what they've done beforehand led to a huge success.
"There was literally no one, I can promise you, inside the label or anywhere who expected anything like it," he told the Web site that hipsters are starting to turn on. "Maybe top 50 or maybe sell half of what was sold, but that was a total fluke and surprise. I couldn't believe it, especially after the whole leak fiasco. I guess this goes to show that leaks don't necessarily hurt, so we should all just chill out."
The biggest risk with a straightforward pay wall is how many will stick around should the paper say that enough is enough, it has had it with these freeloaders on its Web site. Of the Times' Web sites' several million unique viewers each month, there's no doubt that a huge chunk of them would balk at paying a dime for something they had for free yesterday. I know I used to check the Messenger Web site quite a bit when full stories and archives were freely available, but it's now become a chore to look for new content on that horrid Web site. Then again, the Times' nickname isn't "The 'Mess," either.
If it came down to it, I probably would pay $5 per month for the Times online. The only reason I'm unsure is my college bookstore, Little Professor, charges $28 per quarter for the paper, Monday through Saturday. That's ten weeks of the actual paper edition, which is much preferred. Otherwise, of course I would, because good journalism is worth paying for. Good journalism also needs to be paid for, which, unfortunately, is why we're in this situation to begin with.
-30-
$5 per month for the Times?
Saturday, July 11, 2009
That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore
Bill Keller, the man who runs the New York Times, and, by extension, defines the direction of American media, is struggling a bit. His company dropped 27 percent of its first-quarter advertising revenue this year with similar numbers predicted for this quarter, a 2006 New York Magazine profile detailed a newsroom that doesn't believe in him anymore and every move he makes is criticized for being incredibly out of touch.
Of course, there was also that Daily Show segment last month when Jason Jones stopped by the Times' ridiculously expensive new Midtown Manhattan office building for a segment on the newspaper industry. After some polite jabs, there was this cringe-worthy exchange:
Jones: What’s black, white and read all over?
Keller: A newspaper
Jones: No. Your balance sheets!
It was awkward and brilliant. Those who cheer on comedy or hate the Times would be proud to see The Daily Show so effortlessly infiltrate the headquarters of American media. But me, I was actually happy to see Keller playing along at such an awful time. It showed he realized the trouble his industry is facing but knew there was work to be done. And, you know, I figured it would end there. Not so. Here's his response in an upcoming Time interview about how it went.
"Well, that's the last time I try to be a good sport. Even my wife told me that I looked faintly ridiculous, and she was trying to make me feel better. Among the people who would miss us most would be the wise-guy pundits and scriptwriters for satirical TV shows, because they riff on the news we produce."
Is he right? Absolutely, but Keller also took the worst route to say so. In just 58 words, he comes off as angry, distant and arrogant. Basically, he cemented what The Daily Show teased him about.
Perhaps he missed an interview one of his paper's blogs did with Jones the day it aired last month.
"I think the point of the piece is, really, if I could be serious for one moment, that without institutions like yours, the news would not exist. I think everyone has a genuine love of your institution here, because it’s the first paper that almost everybody reads here in the morning. You guys aren’t doing a bad enough job for us to make fun of on a constant basis. Every once in a while you slip up, and then you’re lambs to the slaughter. But you should really be more [terrible]. You’re doing too good of a job."
I realize The Daily Show edits interviews to make them funnier and that they have no journalistic integrity to lose, but this is an incredibly poor showing by Keller after the fact. When a correspondent from a satirical news show walks away looking better than the head of a great media outlet he ridiculed ruthlessly, it's embarrassing.
-30-
The fantastic segment that started all of this.
Keller's disappointing comments to Time about The Daily Show interview
Jason Jones' rather funny interview with the Times
More general NYT advertising losses, plus news on a potential charge for the Web site.
Of course, there was also that Daily Show segment last month when Jason Jones stopped by the Times' ridiculously expensive new Midtown Manhattan office building for a segment on the newspaper industry. After some polite jabs, there was this cringe-worthy exchange:
Jones: What’s black, white and read all over?
Keller: A newspaper
Jones: No. Your balance sheets!
It was awkward and brilliant. Those who cheer on comedy or hate the Times would be proud to see The Daily Show so effortlessly infiltrate the headquarters of American media. But me, I was actually happy to see Keller playing along at such an awful time. It showed he realized the trouble his industry is facing but knew there was work to be done. And, you know, I figured it would end there. Not so. Here's his response in an upcoming Time interview about how it went.
"Well, that's the last time I try to be a good sport. Even my wife told me that I looked faintly ridiculous, and she was trying to make me feel better. Among the people who would miss us most would be the wise-guy pundits and scriptwriters for satirical TV shows, because they riff on the news we produce."
Is he right? Absolutely, but Keller also took the worst route to say so. In just 58 words, he comes off as angry, distant and arrogant. Basically, he cemented what The Daily Show teased him about.
Perhaps he missed an interview one of his paper's blogs did with Jones the day it aired last month.
"I think the point of the piece is, really, if I could be serious for one moment, that without institutions like yours, the news would not exist. I think everyone has a genuine love of your institution here, because it’s the first paper that almost everybody reads here in the morning. You guys aren’t doing a bad enough job for us to make fun of on a constant basis. Every once in a while you slip up, and then you’re lambs to the slaughter. But you should really be more [terrible]. You’re doing too good of a job."
I realize The Daily Show edits interviews to make them funnier and that they have no journalistic integrity to lose, but this is an incredibly poor showing by Keller after the fact. When a correspondent from a satirical news show walks away looking better than the head of a great media outlet he ridiculed ruthlessly, it's embarrassing.
-30-
The fantastic segment that started all of this.
Keller's disappointing comments to Time about The Daily Show interview
Jason Jones' rather funny interview with the Times
More general NYT advertising losses, plus news on a potential charge for the Web site.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Free Speech for the Dumb
One way to get attention is to run around a heavy-traffic area screaming all the obscenities and racial slurs you can think of. People will divert their gaze toward you, your points will be duly noted and some passerbys will even agree with you. That, if nothing else, is a way to go about things.
Most newspaper opinion pages aren't as removed from this scenario as their editors would like to believe. Columnists are hired for the sole reason of stirring interest. If they fail this, they are fired, plain and simple. Although a reporter can succeed by being as interesting as oatmeal (plain oatmeal), columnists must be the outlandish mascots cheering on the newspaper squad. It's awkward for all involved.
A good column is provocative, insightful and/or unique. It's incredibly difficult, at least for me, to reach two of those three regularly in my own writing, so I look rather favorably on those who can do so routinely. They are the best, after all.
Unfortunately, an alternative route has led many a screaming maniac toward success, and it should no longer be permitted. There's this idea, whether acknowledged or not, that provocative is the same as controversial. That just phoning in a piece that takes an opposing view, and doing so outlandishly, is enough to warrant space in a newspaper. In fact, the most divisive of columnists, be they local or national, have a legion of fans and haters debating not the quality of the argument, but how close it is their own. That's a huge problem, and that amount of buzz should not be confused with a columnist's worth.
Using a college newspaper as an example only because there's already the perception of amateurism (often true, yeah, yeah), it would be a huge mistake to continue publishing a column for the sole reason that people talk about it. I firmly believe that subtlety and content wins out in the end. Otherwise, the only impression that's left to the reader is that the page is flash, not substance. Newspapers aren't cable news and shouldn't act as such.
I know the goal of an op/ed page is always to engage the readers, but publishing anyone blatantly close-minded is purely condescending to the audience's intelligence. The point of running a column is not to cement anyone as a local celebrity. It's a trap that's very easy to fall into, and something I will try to keep in mind for next year, Reader.
-30-
The screaming on a street corner route.
The clever, but smug route
Most newspaper opinion pages aren't as removed from this scenario as their editors would like to believe. Columnists are hired for the sole reason of stirring interest. If they fail this, they are fired, plain and simple. Although a reporter can succeed by being as interesting as oatmeal (plain oatmeal), columnists must be the outlandish mascots cheering on the newspaper squad. It's awkward for all involved.
A good column is provocative, insightful and/or unique. It's incredibly difficult, at least for me, to reach two of those three regularly in my own writing, so I look rather favorably on those who can do so routinely. They are the best, after all.
Unfortunately, an alternative route has led many a screaming maniac toward success, and it should no longer be permitted. There's this idea, whether acknowledged or not, that provocative is the same as controversial. That just phoning in a piece that takes an opposing view, and doing so outlandishly, is enough to warrant space in a newspaper. In fact, the most divisive of columnists, be they local or national, have a legion of fans and haters debating not the quality of the argument, but how close it is their own. That's a huge problem, and that amount of buzz should not be confused with a columnist's worth.
Using a college newspaper as an example only because there's already the perception of amateurism (often true, yeah, yeah), it would be a huge mistake to continue publishing a column for the sole reason that people talk about it. I firmly believe that subtlety and content wins out in the end. Otherwise, the only impression that's left to the reader is that the page is flash, not substance. Newspapers aren't cable news and shouldn't act as such.
I know the goal of an op/ed page is always to engage the readers, but publishing anyone blatantly close-minded is purely condescending to the audience's intelligence. The point of running a column is not to cement anyone as a local celebrity. It's a trap that's very easy to fall into, and something I will try to keep in mind for next year, Reader.
-30-
The screaming on a street corner route.
The clever, but smug route
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Metal Machine Music
Like Lou Reed on that historically awful album, reporters are obsessed with feedback. The comments are a welcome distraction to work, occasionally even funny or insightful. But, as is the case when someone becomes so involved in a mindset that most people don't care about (ie, newspapers), these anonymous postings from a vocal minority can set people off.
Reporters spend a lot of time on a project and, by virtue of being in the profession, want to serve the greater good. The more altruistic ones, being obsessed with truth and all, desperately want the feedback to make sure the most accurate information is out there, even at the expense of a correction. The average journalist probably just cares what people think of the story, and that's fine too. Both sides, however, can get pretty weird.
If there were any doubt, the Lancaster Sunday News will erase it. Linked below is a massive, 97-inch and 2,849-word piece (it also ran A1, main section, 6 columns) from last summer covering the forums hosted on its own site. Seriously, my local paper devoted an epic piece entirely to anonymous posters who comment on its own stories. I remember picking up that paper and being, well, I suppose proud of the undeniably thorough job done by Suzanne Cassidy, but rather disappointed that this thing exists. At least Lou Reed said of his over-indulgence on feedback, "Well, anyone who gets to side four is dumber than I am."
In Cassidy's defense, TalkBack is one of the more popular forums to discuss Lancaster County as a whole, but I still don't believe it warrants going to the mayor for his thoughts. The posters are given various forms of anonymity in the paper to basically say they enjoy going on a forum and discussing how the paper is a bit of a monopoly. That's not interesting, at all. Topics with such a limited audience should not receive anything, and I mean anything, more than 30 inches.
Any time a newspaper covers itself, the reporting and conclusion will be inevitably suspect to many readers, absolutely regardless of how well those things are done. Richard Perez-Pana has continued to do great work for The New York Times covering his own company ruthlessly attempt to sell The Boston Globe, but even at the Times it's tough to see pure objectivity when writing about one's own employer. And that's the case here with this obsession of feedback.
The Sunday News is far from alone on reporting on those who comment on them. Many columnists have spoken out on the issue, mostly to say they don't put much stock in the arm-chair reporters (if the writer is nice) or "45-year-old virgins in their mom's basement (if the writer is equal parts mean and uncreative), but I don't buy that for a second. I've seen reporters pretty distraught over purely hateful comments on our Web site, a category I've unfortunately been in as well, and it's disheartening for at least a little while when told that your best reporting isn't good enough for BoBcatFan88.
Luckily, there's not much lasting sting that BoBcatFan88 can leave.
-30-
Witness, 97 inches of coverage to an internet forum hosted by the newspaper covering it.
Reporters spend a lot of time on a project and, by virtue of being in the profession, want to serve the greater good. The more altruistic ones, being obsessed with truth and all, desperately want the feedback to make sure the most accurate information is out there, even at the expense of a correction. The average journalist probably just cares what people think of the story, and that's fine too. Both sides, however, can get pretty weird.
If there were any doubt, the Lancaster Sunday News will erase it. Linked below is a massive, 97-inch and 2,849-word piece (it also ran A1, main section, 6 columns) from last summer covering the forums hosted on its own site. Seriously, my local paper devoted an epic piece entirely to anonymous posters who comment on its own stories. I remember picking up that paper and being, well, I suppose proud of the undeniably thorough job done by Suzanne Cassidy, but rather disappointed that this thing exists. At least Lou Reed said of his over-indulgence on feedback, "Well, anyone who gets to side four is dumber than I am."
In Cassidy's defense, TalkBack is one of the more popular forums to discuss Lancaster County as a whole, but I still don't believe it warrants going to the mayor for his thoughts. The posters are given various forms of anonymity in the paper to basically say they enjoy going on a forum and discussing how the paper is a bit of a monopoly. That's not interesting, at all. Topics with such a limited audience should not receive anything, and I mean anything, more than 30 inches.
Any time a newspaper covers itself, the reporting and conclusion will be inevitably suspect to many readers, absolutely regardless of how well those things are done. Richard Perez-Pana has continued to do great work for The New York Times covering his own company ruthlessly attempt to sell The Boston Globe, but even at the Times it's tough to see pure objectivity when writing about one's own employer. And that's the case here with this obsession of feedback.
The Sunday News is far from alone on reporting on those who comment on them. Many columnists have spoken out on the issue, mostly to say they don't put much stock in the arm-chair reporters (if the writer is nice) or "45-year-old virgins in their mom's basement (if the writer is equal parts mean and uncreative), but I don't buy that for a second. I've seen reporters pretty distraught over purely hateful comments on our Web site, a category I've unfortunately been in as well, and it's disheartening for at least a little while when told that your best reporting isn't good enough for BoBcatFan88.
Luckily, there's not much lasting sting that BoBcatFan88 can leave.
-30-
Witness, 97 inches of coverage to an internet forum hosted by the newspaper covering it.
Spit on a Stranger
As a journalism geek, I love looking at bylines. First and foremost, hard work deserves credit. Much like actual sourcing, it also keeps the reporter and newspaper honest. And one trend I'm happy to see The Post not embrace is running stories without them.
Newspapers inevitably receive way too many news releases, and far more than the number of reporters. Many publications will simply print the release as-is or in a slightly edited form with something like "Staff" as the byline, if there is one at all. Granted, when this is the case, there wasn't really a reporter to credit, per se.
But there's still something lacking there. When stories run without bylines, the reader has no one to give feedback to for the piece. If there's an error, the reader will likely have to pass his or her comments along to the news editor, who has more work to do than can be done in an eight hour work day.
It's also tougher to determine a bias. Speaking for the stories that do have a source to them or some other form of original reporting, there's no way to know who did that interview. For all the reader knows, it could have been a reporter who happened to be a member of the club he or she was writing about. That's highly unethical, obviously, but what indication is there otherwise?
Even minor amounts of work deserve a tag-line. I've rewritten many police news releases and waited around for hours for a source to call back with nothing to show for it. A minor tag-line should come of that. Whatever small acclaim, by pure chance, comes from a byline, I say great. On a lot of days in journalism, seeing your name in print is all the good news there is.
Newspapers inevitably receive way too many news releases, and far more than the number of reporters. Many publications will simply print the release as-is or in a slightly edited form with something like "Staff" as the byline, if there is one at all. Granted, when this is the case, there wasn't really a reporter to credit, per se.
But there's still something lacking there. When stories run without bylines, the reader has no one to give feedback to for the piece. If there's an error, the reader will likely have to pass his or her comments along to the news editor, who has more work to do than can be done in an eight hour work day.
It's also tougher to determine a bias. Speaking for the stories that do have a source to them or some other form of original reporting, there's no way to know who did that interview. For all the reader knows, it could have been a reporter who happened to be a member of the club he or she was writing about. That's highly unethical, obviously, but what indication is there otherwise?
Even minor amounts of work deserve a tag-line. I've rewritten many police news releases and waited around for hours for a source to call back with nothing to show for it. A minor tag-line should come of that. Whatever small acclaim, by pure chance, comes from a byline, I say great. On a lot of days in journalism, seeing your name in print is all the good news there is.
Oxford Comma
http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/
Oh, this? This here is when things go too far.
Dan Abrams is a brilliant and (probably) slimy man. Somehow, he must have known that to create publicity for his new media-criticism-but-not-really-criticism Web site, he needed a piece of controversy. The result is something I think only a former pundit could dream up; it's big, dumb, brash and so straightforward it's incoherent. In short, Abrams finally crafted the Red Hot Chili Peppers of media criticism.
The final product is an utterly exhaustive ranking of every conceivable minutiae of journalism. Everything is included, from Web sites to magazine editors to television producers. Not to say he could put on an entertaining or informative hour of television on MSNBC, but this "Power Grid" is a fine example of how you sell a product.
The site claims there is an extensive system of numbers and maths that I don't dispute, but there's not much reason for it except to stir up controversy. Will Leitch over at Deadspin.com did a great job of pointing out that this is a summary of why people hate journalists. It combines indulgence and uselessness, and just comes off as a means to create buzz. I assume the majority of its readers will be other journalists, as no one else finds us that interesting. Although I wouldn't want to get my news from someone who routinely checks their ranking on the, I hate this name, "Power Grid."
The remainder of the site is exactly what you would expect, it's sparse even considering that it launched very recently. There are many updates on late night talk show hosts and falling ad revenue alongside boring columns that gloss over what journalism is. Don't bother.
One link off the page is to the Twitter HQ of its interns, which goes a little something like this, ad nauseam:
"@alroker Where do you rank? Check out your position on the Mediaite Power Grid! http://bit.ly/omf77
9:48 AM Jul 7th from web"
That same message, and then later various puns telling the poor soul his or her ranking, was sent to many a Twitter site run, ironically, by other interns. In all, a lot of time wasted by just another form of spam.
-30-
The "Grid"
Thanks, Deadspin
Oh, this? This here is when things go too far.
Dan Abrams is a brilliant and (probably) slimy man. Somehow, he must have known that to create publicity for his new media-criticism-but-not-really-criticism Web site, he needed a piece of controversy. The result is something I think only a former pundit could dream up; it's big, dumb, brash and so straightforward it's incoherent. In short, Abrams finally crafted the Red Hot Chili Peppers of media criticism.
The final product is an utterly exhaustive ranking of every conceivable minutiae of journalism. Everything is included, from Web sites to magazine editors to television producers. Not to say he could put on an entertaining or informative hour of television on MSNBC, but this "Power Grid" is a fine example of how you sell a product.
The site claims there is an extensive system of numbers and maths that I don't dispute, but there's not much reason for it except to stir up controversy. Will Leitch over at Deadspin.com did a great job of pointing out that this is a summary of why people hate journalists. It combines indulgence and uselessness, and just comes off as a means to create buzz. I assume the majority of its readers will be other journalists, as no one else finds us that interesting. Although I wouldn't want to get my news from someone who routinely checks their ranking on the, I hate this name, "Power Grid."
The remainder of the site is exactly what you would expect, it's sparse even considering that it launched very recently. There are many updates on late night talk show hosts and falling ad revenue alongside boring columns that gloss over what journalism is. Don't bother.
One link off the page is to the Twitter HQ of its interns, which goes a little something like this, ad nauseam:
"@alroker Where do you rank? Check out your position on the Mediaite Power Grid! http://bit.ly/omf77
9:48 AM Jul 7th from web"
That same message, and then later various puns telling the poor soul his or her ranking, was sent to many a Twitter site run, ironically, by other interns. In all, a lot of time wasted by just another form of spam.
-30-
The "Grid"
Thanks, Deadspin
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
After the Gold Rush
Human decency often gets in the way of a good story, but it's probably the only thing that tells reporters where the line is.
The primary example of this is reporting on deaths. Obviously, people care about those who die within their local area, especially when the deceased was young or faced something even more tragic than usual. So, I hope we can agree right off the bat that although those close to the departed understandably want privacy on the matter, the facts themselves are absolutely news and should be reported.
But where do we go from there? Let's assume, rather safely, that an especially tragic death in a small town will result in a news release from the local police department. It will be sparse with details, not much beyond a brief description of the death and time of dispatch. The officer in charge of talking to the media will be listed at the bottom, but he or she isn't going to have much to add, understandably so. If the department is organized and accustomed to this, it'll even be ready for a records request of the 911 tape.
Okay, that's a six-inch story, maybe eight or ten if the reporter can dig up some kind of background. Sure, it's not compelling and lends no insight into what it means to be affected by the death, but the story is there.
On Sunday, an OU student and his father died when their small plane crashed not far from the airport in West Virgina. It was depressing news to wake up to this morning and once again be reminded how short life is. How students should cover another student's death is a very difficult question, but one that always seems to have the same answer, call the family. I've done it a few times myself, with varying responses from vulgar threats to people actually being sympathetic toward me for having to write the story (which made me feel much worse).
Obviously the people closest to the deceased are grieving immensely, especially as the news cycle requires the information be published the next day, at the latest. Stuff like this can't wait. If our Web site view counts are any indication, most people are fascinated with this stuff and want as much details released as possible. That is, of course, unless they knew the person, at which case they will scold you for taking advantage of the situation. Again, it's understandable. Making that call to a close relative or friend of someone who recently died is a turning point for a journalist, it's a realization that this isn't a game of faceless participants.
Unfortunately, that call needs to be made and a real story needs to be told. At the very least to reflect the fact that these are people, not not names in a city police department news release. Sometimes your pride isn't all that you have to swallow, there's that bit of human decency, too.
-30-
University Mourns Student's Death (OU Outlook, because it broke the story locally)
The primary example of this is reporting on deaths. Obviously, people care about those who die within their local area, especially when the deceased was young or faced something even more tragic than usual. So, I hope we can agree right off the bat that although those close to the departed understandably want privacy on the matter, the facts themselves are absolutely news and should be reported.
But where do we go from there? Let's assume, rather safely, that an especially tragic death in a small town will result in a news release from the local police department. It will be sparse with details, not much beyond a brief description of the death and time of dispatch. The officer in charge of talking to the media will be listed at the bottom, but he or she isn't going to have much to add, understandably so. If the department is organized and accustomed to this, it'll even be ready for a records request of the 911 tape.
Okay, that's a six-inch story, maybe eight or ten if the reporter can dig up some kind of background. Sure, it's not compelling and lends no insight into what it means to be affected by the death, but the story is there.
On Sunday, an OU student and his father died when their small plane crashed not far from the airport in West Virgina. It was depressing news to wake up to this morning and once again be reminded how short life is. How students should cover another student's death is a very difficult question, but one that always seems to have the same answer, call the family. I've done it a few times myself, with varying responses from vulgar threats to people actually being sympathetic toward me for having to write the story (which made me feel much worse).
Obviously the people closest to the deceased are grieving immensely, especially as the news cycle requires the information be published the next day, at the latest. Stuff like this can't wait. If our Web site view counts are any indication, most people are fascinated with this stuff and want as much details released as possible. That is, of course, unless they knew the person, at which case they will scold you for taking advantage of the situation. Again, it's understandable. Making that call to a close relative or friend of someone who recently died is a turning point for a journalist, it's a realization that this isn't a game of faceless participants.
Unfortunately, that call needs to be made and a real story needs to be told. At the very least to reflect the fact that these are people, not not names in a city police department news release. Sometimes your pride isn't all that you have to swallow, there's that bit of human decency, too.
-30-
University Mourns Student's Death (OU Outlook, because it broke the story locally)
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Gash
One of the few things I learned in Psychology 101 that isn't disproved yet was the story of Phineas Gage. He was a 19th century railroad foreman who had an iron rod go straight through his head, leaving him in a completely altered state, but still very much alive. It was a miracle, to be sure, and something I couldn't stop thinking about as I watched a Pit Bull who was shot in the face by a local officer slowly moving around her backyard today.
It was the second time Lancaster Police shot a Pit Bull in the city in under two months.
Yesterday a Lancaster Police officer ran through the yard of a city couple looking for a black bag and was chased out by their dog. He left the fenced-in area, only to be followed by Caprice, a 6-month-old Pit Bull. She chased him out of a gate for a few blocks until he proceeded to shoot her, and, later joined by another officer, totaled three gunshots through her face as they tried to control the large dog. Lancaster Police haven't apologized yet and the family is left with $1,300 in veterinarian bills. A Sargent with Lancaster Police told us the officer's actions are under review but, because he was caught off guard and acting in self-defense, unlikely to be disavowed by the department.
Here's the money quote from the dog's owner, as told to the Intel.
"Why do they always go for the gun?" she said. "What's wrong with jumping on a car, even if it makes you look stupid? My son was right behind them. He would have gotten the dog."
It was a sad story all around, especially seeing this dog with fresh wounds meekly playing with her family. The couple and five children are incredibly distraught, and public opinion is likely against the department as this is now the second such occurrence in as many months.
I do understand the difficulties this officer faced, though. He was called in for a suspicious person report and is suddenly running from a large, angry Pit Bull in the city. The officer doesn't have much training in dealing with aggressive dogs and sees her as a threat to himself and everyone else around, so he reacts immediately to stop whatever damage she could do. "Serve and protect," I get that.
But it's so difficult to watch a dog limp, no matter the reason. Sympathy clashes with objectivity, every single time. The best can turn it off like a switch, and I envy them.
-30-
The Intel's solid writeup of the event
It was the second time Lancaster Police shot a Pit Bull in the city in under two months.
Yesterday a Lancaster Police officer ran through the yard of a city couple looking for a black bag and was chased out by their dog. He left the fenced-in area, only to be followed by Caprice, a 6-month-old Pit Bull. She chased him out of a gate for a few blocks until he proceeded to shoot her, and, later joined by another officer, totaled three gunshots through her face as they tried to control the large dog. Lancaster Police haven't apologized yet and the family is left with $1,300 in veterinarian bills. A Sargent with Lancaster Police told us the officer's actions are under review but, because he was caught off guard and acting in self-defense, unlikely to be disavowed by the department.
Here's the money quote from the dog's owner, as told to the Intel.
"Why do they always go for the gun?" she said. "What's wrong with jumping on a car, even if it makes you look stupid? My son was right behind them. He would have gotten the dog."
It was a sad story all around, especially seeing this dog with fresh wounds meekly playing with her family. The couple and five children are incredibly distraught, and public opinion is likely against the department as this is now the second such occurrence in as many months.
I do understand the difficulties this officer faced, though. He was called in for a suspicious person report and is suddenly running from a large, angry Pit Bull in the city. The officer doesn't have much training in dealing with aggressive dogs and sees her as a threat to himself and everyone else around, so he reacts immediately to stop whatever damage she could do. "Serve and protect," I get that.
But it's so difficult to watch a dog limp, no matter the reason. Sympathy clashes with objectivity, every single time. The best can turn it off like a switch, and I envy them.
-30-
The Intel's solid writeup of the event
4th of July, Asbury Park (Sandy)
Not to harp on Sarah Palin, but how is it she graduated with a degree in journalism from the University of Idaho but absolutely hates the media and does not understand how they work?
In her "news conference" on Friday evening, clearly knowing that the Saturday paper is one of the lowest-read days and few people pay attention on holiday weekends, Palin took no questions and didn't comment on why she was leaving or what her future plans are, which were the only parts that mattered.
And the Twitter drama, as per usual, is quite excellent and childish.
"Unfortunately fake 'Gov Sarah Palin' twitter sites r doing their thing today:unscrupulous, untrue- so sorry if u recv false info @ fake site
3:12 PM Jul 4th from TwitterBerry "
That was important enough to send during Independence Day, and seemingly quite rushed if her grammar is any indication. At least she waited until after Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest was over. Congrats, Joey Chestnut.
-30-
Palin's Twitter Imposters
In her "news conference" on Friday evening, clearly knowing that the Saturday paper is one of the lowest-read days and few people pay attention on holiday weekends, Palin took no questions and didn't comment on why she was leaving or what her future plans are, which were the only parts that mattered.
And the Twitter drama, as per usual, is quite excellent and childish.
"Unfortunately fake 'Gov Sarah Palin' twitter sites r doing their thing today:unscrupulous, untrue- so sorry if u recv false info @ fake site
3:12 PM Jul 4th from TwitterBerry "
That was important enough to send during Independence Day, and seemingly quite rushed if her grammar is any indication. At least she waited until after Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest was over. Congrats, Joey Chestnut.
-30-
Palin's Twitter Imposters
Friday, July 3, 2009
7/3 (shorline)
For better or worse, it doesn't matter anymore who breaks a national story and "exclusive" doesn't mean a thing.
Locally, scoops are why we do the job. Breaking a story, working all day on it and waking up the next morning to see it on the front page is the biggest thrill journalism provides. Much like a great baseball closer, epic successes and failures remain in the best journalists' mind briefly before heading back the next day to work some more.
But nationally is a different story. When South Carolina's The State received e-mails a few months back about Gov. Sanford's affair, corroborated the story and literally followed him to the airport three hours away, it was a testament to the power of hard work in journalism. I hope they enjoyed that notoriety, because it didn't last long.
Obviously every big media outlet in the country played catchup on what The State broke. To its credit, The Associated Press followed up with a fantastic and lengthy interview with Sanford that pulled even more crude details out of that incredibly bland human being.
But as it always seems to happen, we forgot about The State. Given their size, The Associated Press, New York Times and Washington Post were all able to hype the story in ways The State couldn't possibly imagine. Although the actual affair wasn't confirmed until Sanford gave his rambling news conference, it was The State that essentially forced him to admit it. Most outlets gave credit to the paper, often just for the leaked e-mails, but it's a sign that no one ever really remembers who broke what.
And not to blame blogs, but they certainly don't help the problem. "Blogfrica" as the talented gentlemen at Kissing Suzy Kolber like to say, constantly kicks around the same story until few remember where it started. The good blogs add strong analysis, but it's a shame that credit doesn't always seem to go where it deserves.
So here's to you, Gina Smith. The work was well done and appreciated.
-30-
Following Sanford to Atlanta
Locally, scoops are why we do the job. Breaking a story, working all day on it and waking up the next morning to see it on the front page is the biggest thrill journalism provides. Much like a great baseball closer, epic successes and failures remain in the best journalists' mind briefly before heading back the next day to work some more.
But nationally is a different story. When South Carolina's The State received e-mails a few months back about Gov. Sanford's affair, corroborated the story and literally followed him to the airport three hours away, it was a testament to the power of hard work in journalism. I hope they enjoyed that notoriety, because it didn't last long.
Obviously every big media outlet in the country played catchup on what The State broke. To its credit, The Associated Press followed up with a fantastic and lengthy interview with Sanford that pulled even more crude details out of that incredibly bland human being.
But as it always seems to happen, we forgot about The State. Given their size, The Associated Press, New York Times and Washington Post were all able to hype the story in ways The State couldn't possibly imagine. Although the actual affair wasn't confirmed until Sanford gave his rambling news conference, it was The State that essentially forced him to admit it. Most outlets gave credit to the paper, often just for the leaked e-mails, but it's a sign that no one ever really remembers who broke what.
And not to blame blogs, but they certainly don't help the problem. "Blogfrica" as the talented gentlemen at Kissing Suzy Kolber like to say, constantly kicks around the same story until few remember where it started. The good blogs add strong analysis, but it's a shame that credit doesn't always seem to go where it deserves.
So here's to you, Gina Smith. The work was well done and appreciated.
-30-
Following Sanford to Atlanta
Thursday, July 2, 2009
I'll Laugh Until My Head Comes Off
My local news Web site, LancasterOnline.com, uses the letters "LOL" as the icon for its Firefox tab.
Who says the news is always so bleak?
-30-
LOL.
Who says the news is always so bleak?
-30-
LOL.
Do you, Mr. Jones?
Sarah Palin is the "Transformers" of American politics, and there's nothing the media can do to stop either.
Journalists tend to believe they know what's best. It's a bit smug, but almost inherent when you follow a beat so closely for a while and see its inner workings. When Gov. Palin becomes a leader of the Republican Party and Transformers 2 explodes as the biggest movie in America, those who cover politics and entertainment, respectively, are left to scratch their heads.
Transformers 2 was panned by critics but now on pace to be one of the most successful films of all time. It's made almost $450 million worldwide, all with a run-time of two and a half hours and a 20 percent approval rating on RottenTomatoes.com. I was dragged to the first one, and although I am passing on this edition of the saga, I have no doubt Michael Bay returns with more GMC trucks, robot philosophy and buildings knocked in two. In short, it was something safe and accessible to the masses, a guaranteed blockbuster with everything thrown in.
I'd add that Sarah Palin has returned to the scene, but of course she never left. With a new profile in Vanity Fair that she declined comment for and heavy turnout everytime she promotes a cause, Palin is circumventing the media. That Vanity Fair piece points out the most puzzling thing about Palin, how can someone who is so proud to be ignorant so successful in national politics? She's done a great job convincing the country that the media hates seeing average people succeed on a national level, something that may not be entirely wrong.
Just because the average reporter makes somewhere around $35,000, doesn't make him or her in touch with the random citizen. Sometimes that college diploma, intellectual curiosity and knowledge of how sausage is made creates such a distance between reporter and readership. For all the touting they do of Frost/Nixon, Chuck Schumer, Doubt, Russ Feingold, The Wrestler or Barbara Boxer, certain politicians and movies do not have the mainstream appeal. The sooner reporters realize that "simple" sells, that people just want things that are big and dumb (certainly not a bad thing, see: "Rock 'n Roll"), the better off they'll be. Otherwise, reporters will slip further out of touch.
Supposedly, when everything in the world turns awful people still want to spend $9 for a movie escape. They can't afford a vacation or that new car, but will always want to see something big and shiny blow up. I guess it makes sense. And in my view, Palin and Transformers embody that notion better than anything else. Give the people what they want and hope things turn out okay.
-30-
Vanity Fair's Sarah Palin profile
Transformers 2 on Rotten Tomatoes
Journalists tend to believe they know what's best. It's a bit smug, but almost inherent when you follow a beat so closely for a while and see its inner workings. When Gov. Palin becomes a leader of the Republican Party and Transformers 2 explodes as the biggest movie in America, those who cover politics and entertainment, respectively, are left to scratch their heads.
Transformers 2 was panned by critics but now on pace to be one of the most successful films of all time. It's made almost $450 million worldwide, all with a run-time of two and a half hours and a 20 percent approval rating on RottenTomatoes.com. I was dragged to the first one, and although I am passing on this edition of the saga, I have no doubt Michael Bay returns with more GMC trucks, robot philosophy and buildings knocked in two. In short, it was something safe and accessible to the masses, a guaranteed blockbuster with everything thrown in.
I'd add that Sarah Palin has returned to the scene, but of course she never left. With a new profile in Vanity Fair that she declined comment for and heavy turnout everytime she promotes a cause, Palin is circumventing the media. That Vanity Fair piece points out the most puzzling thing about Palin, how can someone who is so proud to be ignorant so successful in national politics? She's done a great job convincing the country that the media hates seeing average people succeed on a national level, something that may not be entirely wrong.
Just because the average reporter makes somewhere around $35,000, doesn't make him or her in touch with the random citizen. Sometimes that college diploma, intellectual curiosity and knowledge of how sausage is made creates such a distance between reporter and readership. For all the touting they do of Frost/Nixon, Chuck Schumer, Doubt, Russ Feingold, The Wrestler or Barbara Boxer, certain politicians and movies do not have the mainstream appeal. The sooner reporters realize that "simple" sells, that people just want things that are big and dumb (certainly not a bad thing, see: "Rock 'n Roll"), the better off they'll be. Otherwise, reporters will slip further out of touch.
Supposedly, when everything in the world turns awful people still want to spend $9 for a movie escape. They can't afford a vacation or that new car, but will always want to see something big and shiny blow up. I guess it makes sense. And in my view, Palin and Transformers embody that notion better than anything else. Give the people what they want and hope things turn out okay.
-30-
Vanity Fair's Sarah Palin profile
Transformers 2 on Rotten Tomatoes
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
We Shall All Be Healed
There were plenty of reasons I voted for Obama in November, but one of the most important promises he made was to not raise taxes for those making under $250,000 per year. I thought it was great. After years of economic recovery plans that included randomly sending $400 to people, this would be a thoughtful measure to the twisted version of trickle-down economics that we saw for eight years. Plus, free health care. Weeeee. Well, maybe it was too great.
David Axelrod, Obama's right-hand man, went on This Week with George Stephanopoulos to essentially waffle on how to the president's promise. On the campaign trail, Obama said, "I can make a firm pledge: Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase, not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Strong words and an important message. It tells the American people that although times are bad, the government will not go after the little guy to fix it. Unfortunately, it may not be the case anymore. Axelrod told Stephanopolous that paying for that last one-third of universal health care is tricky. "But there are a number of formulations and we'll wait and see," he said. "The important thing at this point is to keep the process moving, to keep people at the table, to the keep the discussions going."
In general, it seems the media have cooled a bit on our president. Although the press does publicly ask questions of its own reporting, as is the self-importance sometimes seen in media, there have been numerous stories on if the "honeymoon" is over. After six months, I sure hope so.
There is one fantastic Web site, Politifact.com, that tracks the progress of his campaign promises and the truthfulness of other political statements. I highly recommend it.
I do still put myself in the approving category, and think Obama has done a fine job so far, but this tax hike (one that would affect most reporters) could completely knock him out of their, and the average American's, good graces. Here's hoping he finds a way.
-30-
Politifact
David Axelrod, Obama's right-hand man, went on This Week with George Stephanopoulos to essentially waffle on how to the president's promise. On the campaign trail, Obama said, "I can make a firm pledge: Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase, not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Strong words and an important message. It tells the American people that although times are bad, the government will not go after the little guy to fix it. Unfortunately, it may not be the case anymore. Axelrod told Stephanopolous that paying for that last one-third of universal health care is tricky. "But there are a number of formulations and we'll wait and see," he said. "The important thing at this point is to keep the process moving, to keep people at the table, to the keep the discussions going."
In general, it seems the media have cooled a bit on our president. Although the press does publicly ask questions of its own reporting, as is the self-importance sometimes seen in media, there have been numerous stories on if the "honeymoon" is over. After six months, I sure hope so.
There is one fantastic Web site, Politifact.com, that tracks the progress of his campaign promises and the truthfulness of other political statements. I highly recommend it.
I do still put myself in the approving category, and think Obama has done a fine job so far, but this tax hike (one that would affect most reporters) could completely knock him out of their, and the average American's, good graces. Here's hoping he finds a way.
-30-
Politifact
If You're Feeling Sinister
Gannet's (publisher of USA Today) more than 80 local newspapers will soon seem a lot lonelier. In the next few days, they are expected to shed between one and two thousand jobs.
That, of course, is a ridiculous number. With $3.7 billion in debt during the first quarter, Gannet decided that a workforce of 41,500 is too much. Maybe the only solace is that this probably doesn't come as a surprise to its employees, as the company also cut 4,600 jobs last year. Actually, fear of impending doom isn't really comforting at all.
Obviously two years in on that elusive Bachelors of Science in Journalism, I take the news on the end of the news quite seriously. When I first committed to the major a few years back, I knew money wouldn't be tight and it would be a labor of love. And that's an offer I'd take again in a heartbeat, but now it's a fight to even get that low-paying job. Although it's not quite what I signed up for, I, and I hope most others, knew this collapse was at least a possibility.
We're told endlessly in classes that things will rebound. I'm not sure how much I buy that, especially since most professors, by definition, haven't actually done the craft in a long time. They've written about journalism, taught how it should be done and probably stay very up to date on the news, but I'm a firm believer that this field cannot be taught in a classroom. My teachers put on a hopeful face, and I guess I appreciate it, but when the biggest publisher by circulation lays off about 15 percent of its employees in the past year, well, I wonder what other skills I have. It's a sobering thought.
-30-
Gannett Will Cut More Than 1,000 Jobs (WSJ)
That, of course, is a ridiculous number. With $3.7 billion in debt during the first quarter, Gannet decided that a workforce of 41,500 is too much. Maybe the only solace is that this probably doesn't come as a surprise to its employees, as the company also cut 4,600 jobs last year. Actually, fear of impending doom isn't really comforting at all.
Obviously two years in on that elusive Bachelors of Science in Journalism, I take the news on the end of the news quite seriously. When I first committed to the major a few years back, I knew money wouldn't be tight and it would be a labor of love. And that's an offer I'd take again in a heartbeat, but now it's a fight to even get that low-paying job. Although it's not quite what I signed up for, I, and I hope most others, knew this collapse was at least a possibility.
We're told endlessly in classes that things will rebound. I'm not sure how much I buy that, especially since most professors, by definition, haven't actually done the craft in a long time. They've written about journalism, taught how it should be done and probably stay very up to date on the news, but I'm a firm believer that this field cannot be taught in a classroom. My teachers put on a hopeful face, and I guess I appreciate it, but when the biggest publisher by circulation lays off about 15 percent of its employees in the past year, well, I wonder what other skills I have. It's a sobering thought.
-30-
Gannett Will Cut More Than 1,000 Jobs (WSJ)
What's The Frequency, Kenneth?
Most newspaper stories aren't as good as they could be, and it's a constant frustration. For countless reasons, like few key sources willing to speak candidly or the reporter simply not having the time in between other projects to perfect it, articles go to print lacking useful details or containing mistakes.
It's why I try not to rip into local news too much. Reporters are paid little for their important work and are often viewed with disdain. But I'd like to point out this story, "Pennsylvania's bats doomed," from today's local paper, because I think it's a good example of how mistakes happen all the time in this industry. (Again, full disclosure: I worked for the paper's teen section for several years, was a sports correspondent for a bit and nearly an intern there this summer).
The actual news in this story is that the bat population of Pennsylvania will (probably?) fall considerably. This story's length, however, is gigantic as far as newsprint goes. As newsprint continues to shrink while ad revenue disappears, copy this long should be devoted to huge investigative pieces, especially since the readers' interest inevitably wanes.
This was obviously not an investigative piece. Greg Turner, a biologist with the Pennsylvania Game Commission, is essentially the only source in the story. There's another person, except that she's introduced early on but only adds an odd quote at the end of the story in conversation with Turner, if that makes sense. Anyway, Turner says these mounting deaths prove to be an important topic. So far, so good; there are environmental problems in the rural state of Pennsylvania, something that will affect its proud residents. Okay, why should people care?
Here's the telling 'graph, "Whether you like bats or they creep you out, the loss of them has ramifications for us all." That's a very important point, and it's crucial to answer why this is important right away in this story. Unfortunately, it's in the 29th 'graph out of 33. Many people are frightened by bats and are unaware of all the good they do. This had to be addressed immediately, not tacked on at the end in a disjointed manner.
I don't doubt Turner's expertise, nor the importance of what he's trying to say, but what's the real news here? Why is Turner given 28 inches (more than 800 words) in a newspaper with a circulation of about 85,000 subscribers (plus online, where I read it) to assess a possible mass death of bats?
Staff Writer Ad Crable uses phrases here like "people hanging out around lakes may find more bites" that are so informal it looks like it came straight from his interview notes. Most of the mistakes would only bother a j-school kid, probably, but they are the errors of a new journalist, not a strong (and I do mean that) environmental reporter like Crable.
There are too many broken rules though, stuff like how you aren't supposed to write "you" or address the reader, or refer to yourself as part of the group, using "us." "Hopefully" is not supposed to be used to start a sentence, grammatically speaking. There's only one Game Commission, so it would be singular and thus "it" is its pronoun, not "them." Combined with how confusing the story is due to it's very long length and the sequencing that jerks the reader around, these mistakes are surprising.
I'm not writing any of this to point out errors made by others, I myself am no grammar expert and make quite a few mistakes, especially with hyphens. What I'm really getting at here is that reporters these days genuinely struggle to put the story out they expect of themselves. There are so many inhibitors, and I think what struck here was a lack of time. Perhaps Crable had to fill space and stretched this bit of news that had little urgency well beyond its breaking point. Or maybe time just ran out, who knows? Or maybe this is a story the folks at Lancaster Newspapers look at as solid. It's possible.
It's still an example that journalists mess up like everyone else, but their errors are much more widespread. The mistakes are printed and distributed for everyone to see. And there is no greater sense of scrutiny than the subject of a story reading the final product. That total exposure can be phenomenal or awful, usually depending on a few strokes of luck.
-30-
Pennsylvania's Bats Doomed
It's why I try not to rip into local news too much. Reporters are paid little for their important work and are often viewed with disdain. But I'd like to point out this story, "Pennsylvania's bats doomed," from today's local paper, because I think it's a good example of how mistakes happen all the time in this industry. (Again, full disclosure: I worked for the paper's teen section for several years, was a sports correspondent for a bit and nearly an intern there this summer).
The actual news in this story is that the bat population of Pennsylvania will (probably?) fall considerably. This story's length, however, is gigantic as far as newsprint goes. As newsprint continues to shrink while ad revenue disappears, copy this long should be devoted to huge investigative pieces, especially since the readers' interest inevitably wanes.
This was obviously not an investigative piece. Greg Turner, a biologist with the Pennsylvania Game Commission, is essentially the only source in the story. There's another person, except that she's introduced early on but only adds an odd quote at the end of the story in conversation with Turner, if that makes sense. Anyway, Turner says these mounting deaths prove to be an important topic. So far, so good; there are environmental problems in the rural state of Pennsylvania, something that will affect its proud residents. Okay, why should people care?
Here's the telling 'graph, "Whether you like bats or they creep you out, the loss of them has ramifications for us all." That's a very important point, and it's crucial to answer why this is important right away in this story. Unfortunately, it's in the 29th 'graph out of 33. Many people are frightened by bats and are unaware of all the good they do. This had to be addressed immediately, not tacked on at the end in a disjointed manner.
I don't doubt Turner's expertise, nor the importance of what he's trying to say, but what's the real news here? Why is Turner given 28 inches (more than 800 words) in a newspaper with a circulation of about 85,000 subscribers (plus online, where I read it) to assess a possible mass death of bats?
Staff Writer Ad Crable uses phrases here like "people hanging out around lakes may find more bites" that are so informal it looks like it came straight from his interview notes. Most of the mistakes would only bother a j-school kid, probably, but they are the errors of a new journalist, not a strong (and I do mean that) environmental reporter like Crable.
There are too many broken rules though, stuff like how you aren't supposed to write "you" or address the reader, or refer to yourself as part of the group, using "us." "Hopefully" is not supposed to be used to start a sentence, grammatically speaking. There's only one Game Commission, so it would be singular and thus "it" is its pronoun, not "them." Combined with how confusing the story is due to it's very long length and the sequencing that jerks the reader around, these mistakes are surprising.
I'm not writing any of this to point out errors made by others, I myself am no grammar expert and make quite a few mistakes, especially with hyphens. What I'm really getting at here is that reporters these days genuinely struggle to put the story out they expect of themselves. There are so many inhibitors, and I think what struck here was a lack of time. Perhaps Crable had to fill space and stretched this bit of news that had little urgency well beyond its breaking point. Or maybe time just ran out, who knows? Or maybe this is a story the folks at Lancaster Newspapers look at as solid. It's possible.
It's still an example that journalists mess up like everyone else, but their errors are much more widespread. The mistakes are printed and distributed for everyone to see. And there is no greater sense of scrutiny than the subject of a story reading the final product. That total exposure can be phenomenal or awful, usually depending on a few strokes of luck.
-30-
Pennsylvania's Bats Doomed
She Watch Channel Zero?!
Apparently, it isn't easy to sit back and let Stephen Colbert make jokes. After four and a half years, everyone understands the fake-republican slant of the show. The best guests, in the segment I often skip, simply play along with Colbert.
Successfully trading jokes with him is next to impossible, a move that almost doesn't seem worth the likely embarrassment. By those relatively low standards of simply answering the questions, Ohio University Professor Kevin Mattson did a fine job on The Colbert Report tonight.
Mattson was promoting his book, "What the Heck are You Up to Mr. President?: Jimmy Carter, America's "Malaise," and the Speech that Should Have Changed the Country." As is a trend on the show, Colbert made fun of the ridiculously long title right off the bat.
There wasn't much of note from the interview. Mattson discussed the comparisons made between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, leading Colbert into a "Reagan Good, Carter Bad" chant. It was an interview with an academic who was very knowledgeable on a certain moment in history, something that, in hindsight, was only notable because we are part of the same school.
Still, it went well. Colbert ended the interview by asking Mattson if Carter were the "worst" president or "worstest" president. Instead of trying to come up with a strong joke in two seconds with a million people watching, Mattson took the pass and declined comment. On a show where it seems like the guest could always say something embarrassing, sometimes nothing at all is a victory in itself.
-30-
Kevin Mattson's Blog
Successfully trading jokes with him is next to impossible, a move that almost doesn't seem worth the likely embarrassment. By those relatively low standards of simply answering the questions, Ohio University Professor Kevin Mattson did a fine job on The Colbert Report tonight.
Mattson was promoting his book, "What the Heck are You Up to Mr. President?: Jimmy Carter, America's "Malaise," and the Speech that Should Have Changed the Country." As is a trend on the show, Colbert made fun of the ridiculously long title right off the bat.
There wasn't much of note from the interview. Mattson discussed the comparisons made between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, leading Colbert into a "Reagan Good, Carter Bad" chant. It was an interview with an academic who was very knowledgeable on a certain moment in history, something that, in hindsight, was only notable because we are part of the same school.
Still, it went well. Colbert ended the interview by asking Mattson if Carter were the "worst" president or "worstest" president. Instead of trying to come up with a strong joke in two seconds with a million people watching, Mattson took the pass and declined comment. On a show where it seems like the guest could always say something embarrassing, sometimes nothing at all is a victory in itself.
-30-
Kevin Mattson's Blog
Gaslight Anthem
Sometimes after a long day, you stumble upon news that makes you smile. It's not quite due to schadenfreude, more so the randomness of the crime.
Assuming you aren't the victim, which seems pretty safe, I think you'll enjoy the story.
-30-
The hooligans are loose, The hooligans are loose.
Assuming you aren't the victim, which seems pretty safe, I think you'll enjoy the story.
-30-
The hooligans are loose, The hooligans are loose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
