Ghost of Sacramento
Today is my final day as a print journalist. It is ten after four. I plan to leave my job at the Los Angeles Daily Journal (Sacramento bureau) in about an hour. I've made little if any impact here and will be glad to be done with it.
Stripped of identity, I wonder if this departure will bring me closer to journalism or if I'll find I'm more attracted to the sunset.
Nov 30, 2007
The trickle up effect
There's a crisis in the newspaper industry, New York Times Editor Bill Keller says. And, surprisingly enough, this time it has to do with the news.
In a speech given in London, Keller reminds the audience that doing journalism is very different thing from commenting on or reacting to it, as so many blogs and television shows do. He makes the point to illustrate that the real threat to newspapers is not from the outside (commentary never killed anyone) but from the inside, where newspaper owners and newsroom leaders have shown "a loss of faith, a failure of resolve" in their own profession.
I suppose I must count myself among the fallen, at least for now.
Still, this is heartening to hear. As I've argued before, the biggest threat to print journalism comes neither from dwindling profits nor from the Internet, but from the willingness of journalists at feeder newspapers to lower their standards. I guess I understand: After the barons rape and pillage, the survivors are often too few to mount a rescue mission, leaving a weary, depressed and smaller workforce to toil in the wake.
I challenge Keller and his brethren to launch a conservation campaign. Chain yourself to a downsized journalist! Barricade the newsroom doors the next time newsroom firings are announced!
After all, these young journalists are the raw material larger papers must harvest to survive. What will the New York Times and its competition do in a generation when all that's let are journalists who act like abuse survivors?
In a speech given in London, Keller reminds the audience that doing journalism is very different thing from commenting on or reacting to it, as so many blogs and television shows do. He makes the point to illustrate that the real threat to newspapers is not from the outside (commentary never killed anyone) but from the inside, where newspaper owners and newsroom leaders have shown "a loss of faith, a failure of resolve" in their own profession.
I suppose I must count myself among the fallen, at least for now.
Still, this is heartening to hear. As I've argued before, the biggest threat to print journalism comes neither from dwindling profits nor from the Internet, but from the willingness of journalists at feeder newspapers to lower their standards. I guess I understand: After the barons rape and pillage, the survivors are often too few to mount a rescue mission, leaving a weary, depressed and smaller workforce to toil in the wake.
I challenge Keller and his brethren to launch a conservation campaign. Chain yourself to a downsized journalist! Barricade the newsroom doors the next time newsroom firings are announced!
After all, these young journalists are the raw material larger papers must harvest to survive. What will the New York Times and its competition do in a generation when all that's let are journalists who act like abuse survivors?
Asking for it
Our second closest friend in the Middle East knows that even a victim is bound to have done something wrong. Spare the rod, spoil the population.
Our second closest friend in the Middle East knows that even a victim is bound to have done something wrong. Spare the rod, spoil the population.
Unharnessed passion
I'm automatically suspicious of anyone who singles out Anderson Cooper for praise. But let's set that aside for now.
Dan Kennedy at Media Nation suggests that the reason CNN got hoodwinked by a Hillary Clinton adviser at Wednesday's CNN-YouTube debate is because of an unclear and convoluted system of sorting through the 5,000 or so submitted v-questions.
(The adviser, a retired general, buttonholed the Republican candidates with a question on gays in the military.)
Frankly, if we are going to let "citizens" become the media, then I think we have to take the good with the bad. I'm not sure you can call what CNN did a mistake under the vague ground rules citizen journalists advocate.
Still, Kennedy said there is a better way to harness the power of citizen media and he provides his own outline for how to better filter the questions:
What's the fetish about showing "regular" people in their dimly lit homes stammering through sometimes off-the-wall questions? The only reason I can see is it promotes YouTube and, by extension, CNN for being hip enough to know lots of people use the online service.
Until we find a way to let every American ask his or her question, someone is going to filter through the queries. So why waste time with this charade of populism? Why not ask political reporters from around the country - big media and small - to submit questions? At least then you'd have people who make it their job to follow local and national trends asking informed questions.
The conceit is that there is a "citizen media". There are people who aren't journalists who have questions for politicians. But, like the retired general, they also have agendas and a desire to influence the election.
A journalist is someone from the citizen ranks who decides he or she is willing to set aside that personal agenda and act a representative for the public at large. Anyone who wants to can apply - the more the merrier! But our ranks are dwindling because the corporations who don't want to pay us would rather "empower" the citizen media to ask the questions for free. The trade-off is objectivity.
The retired general probably wasn't the only partisan questioner but he was the only one who got caught. That's because he's well-known.
I'm automatically suspicious of anyone who singles out Anderson Cooper for praise. But let's set that aside for now.
Dan Kennedy at Media Nation suggests that the reason CNN got hoodwinked by a Hillary Clinton adviser at Wednesday's CNN-YouTube debate is because of an unclear and convoluted system of sorting through the 5,000 or so submitted v-questions.
(The adviser, a retired general, buttonholed the Republican candidates with a question on gays in the military.)
Frankly, if we are going to let "citizens" become the media, then I think we have to take the good with the bad. I'm not sure you can call what CNN did a mistake under the vague ground rules citizen journalists advocate.
Still, Kennedy said there is a better way to harness the power of citizen media and he provides his own outline for how to better filter the questions:
- Have people upload videos in six or eight subject categories — the war in Iraq, terrorism, taxes, immigration, the environment, whatever.
- Subject those videos to light vetting to make sure none is tilted for or against a particular candidate, or is grotesquely offensive.
- Let the YouTube community vote on the best video in each category. Those are the questions that will be asked.
What's the fetish about showing "regular" people in their dimly lit homes stammering through sometimes off-the-wall questions? The only reason I can see is it promotes YouTube and, by extension, CNN for being hip enough to know lots of people use the online service.
Until we find a way to let every American ask his or her question, someone is going to filter through the queries. So why waste time with this charade of populism? Why not ask political reporters from around the country - big media and small - to submit questions? At least then you'd have people who make it their job to follow local and national trends asking informed questions.
The conceit is that there is a "citizen media". There are people who aren't journalists who have questions for politicians. But, like the retired general, they also have agendas and a desire to influence the election.
A journalist is someone from the citizen ranks who decides he or she is willing to set aside that personal agenda and act a representative for the public at large. Anyone who wants to can apply - the more the merrier! But our ranks are dwindling because the corporations who don't want to pay us would rather "empower" the citizen media to ask the questions for free. The trade-off is objectivity.
The retired general probably wasn't the only partisan questioner but he was the only one who got caught. That's because he's well-known.
Nov 29, 2007
Matt Taibbi isn't brilliant
Lately, a lot of interviewers have gushed over Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi. He's sometimes funny, sometimes incisive, but mostly a bad knock-off of Hunter S. Thompson.
But in America, we still link to stories no matter what we make of them. So read on.
Lately, a lot of interviewers have gushed over Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi. He's sometimes funny, sometimes incisive, but mostly a bad knock-off of Hunter S. Thompson.
But in America, we still link to stories no matter what we make of them. So read on.
Insights into the obvious
AJR editor Rem Rieder reminds us that starvation is not a healthy diet.
More specifically, he calls for a ban on the "do more with less" pap being spouted by publishers and executive editors overseeing shrinking newsrooms (which most of them are).
Says Rieder: The "do more with less" silliness is bad enough when it comes from other industries. But it's particularly appalling when it comes from people who are in the truth-telling business.
Glad someone is saying it, even if it is 5 years too late. But Rieder never makes the turn to ask why: Why is corporate speak so common in the newsroom these days?
It's not a passive response to fears about dwindling profits, it's an active incursion perpetrated by people who've always resented the fact that editorial was protected from profit concerns.
Now, the other parts of the newspaper want editorial to step up and generate the profits needed so they can survive. To do this they are transforming the newsroom from a thing protected from corporate pressure into a thing that responds to corporate pressure. Corporate speak is just the outward sign of this.
Words are important.
More specifically, he calls for a ban on the "do more with less" pap being spouted by publishers and executive editors overseeing shrinking newsrooms (which most of them are).
Says Rieder: The "do more with less" silliness is bad enough when it comes from other industries. But it's particularly appalling when it comes from people who are in the truth-telling business.
Glad someone is saying it, even if it is 5 years too late. But Rieder never makes the turn to ask why: Why is corporate speak so common in the newsroom these days?
It's not a passive response to fears about dwindling profits, it's an active incursion perpetrated by people who've always resented the fact that editorial was protected from profit concerns.
Now, the other parts of the newspaper want editorial to step up and generate the profits needed so they can survive. To do this they are transforming the newsroom from a thing protected from corporate pressure into a thing that responds to corporate pressure. Corporate speak is just the outward sign of this.
Words are important.
Nov 28, 2007
Debate! Debate! 4
Will you grant the VP as much power as Cheney has been granted?
Thompson wants the VP to have a strong hand in domestic security and pick SCOTUS judges.
McCain says he wouldn't have to rely on a VP on security 'cause he's not as green as Bush.
Neither said yes, neither said no.
Also, the campaign videos from Huckabee and Giuliani are extremely disturbing. How do these people not know how unfunny the ads are? Duncan Hunter's ad touts his defense of a Christian cross on public land. That, apparently, is presidential.
A retired general with a weak voice declares himself gay and asks why gays can't serve in the military (since he just did it for 43 years).
Unit cohesion would suffer, according to Hunter. Units too small and tight to accept gays.
Huckabee thinks morale would suffer.
Mitt Romney flip-flops, says Don't Ask Don't Tell works even though he wanted gays to serve out in the open in 1994. Now he defers any further decision to the military (of which he'd be the head).
McCain also likes DADT.
Social Security?
It will go bankrupt, Thompson says. Calls it an entitlement tsunami getting ready to hit us. Don't know what he plans to do.
Romney wants a new course, which is an old course, the course set by Ronald Reagan. Again, no specifics.
How does the Republican Party attack the black vote?
Giuliani says communication is the key, and the idea-r of school choice. And moving them off welfare.
Huckabee wants to campaign for black votes, in part by dealing with their heart problems.
Repairing America's infrastructure
Giuliani says a sustained program, partnering with state and local governments, is needed.
McCain will fix the bridges on the back of pork-barrel spending.
And there you have it. Nothing learned, nothing gained.
Will you grant the VP as much power as Cheney has been granted?
Thompson wants the VP to have a strong hand in domestic security and pick SCOTUS judges.
McCain says he wouldn't have to rely on a VP on security 'cause he's not as green as Bush.
Neither said yes, neither said no.
Also, the campaign videos from Huckabee and Giuliani are extremely disturbing. How do these people not know how unfunny the ads are? Duncan Hunter's ad touts his defense of a Christian cross on public land. That, apparently, is presidential.
A retired general with a weak voice declares himself gay and asks why gays can't serve in the military (since he just did it for 43 years).
Unit cohesion would suffer, according to Hunter. Units too small and tight to accept gays.
Huckabee thinks morale would suffer.
Mitt Romney flip-flops, says Don't Ask Don't Tell works even though he wanted gays to serve out in the open in 1994. Now he defers any further decision to the military (of which he'd be the head).
McCain also likes DADT.
Social Security?
It will go bankrupt, Thompson says. Calls it an entitlement tsunami getting ready to hit us. Don't know what he plans to do.
Romney wants a new course, which is an old course, the course set by Ronald Reagan. Again, no specifics.
How does the Republican Party attack the black vote?
Giuliani says communication is the key, and the idea-r of school choice. And moving them off welfare.
Huckabee wants to campaign for black votes, in part by dealing with their heart problems.
Repairing America's infrastructure
Giuliani says a sustained program, partnering with state and local governments, is needed.
McCain will fix the bridges on the back of pork-barrel spending.
And there you have it. Nothing learned, nothing gained.
Debate! Debate! 3
John McCain, looking like he might rip the skin on his neck if he turns his head any faster, gives some tough talk on Iraq. Can't withdraw or it will give al Qaeda a win.
Duncan Hunter reminds the Muslim world how generous we are. He will never apologize for the United States of America.
Ooh, waterboarding!
Mitt hides behind the top secret veil. He can't say whether he supports waterboarding because we can't tell everyone the strategies we are using. He also loves Guantanamo.
McCain: "I am astonished ... that anyone could believe that is not torture." Snap. Here comes Mitt, "I did not say and do not say I am in favor of torture" but he will not tell you what he's not in favor of. A very interesting exchange.
Should we remain in Iraq?
Thompson says no but he's vested in a scenario of victory.
Paul gets booed for saying the best thing we can do is give Iraqis their country back.
McCain gets angry at the reference to Vietnam - we won all the battles but lost public opinion, he says.
This whole debate seems to be about attitudes. I'm not sure any of the attitudes I am seeing is a surprise.
John McCain, looking like he might rip the skin on his neck if he turns his head any faster, gives some tough talk on Iraq. Can't withdraw or it will give al Qaeda a win.
Duncan Hunter reminds the Muslim world how generous we are. He will never apologize for the United States of America.
Ooh, waterboarding!
Mitt hides behind the top secret veil. He can't say whether he supports waterboarding because we can't tell everyone the strategies we are using. He also loves Guantanamo.
McCain: "I am astonished ... that anyone could believe that is not torture." Snap. Here comes Mitt, "I did not say and do not say I am in favor of torture" but he will not tell you what he's not in favor of. A very interesting exchange.
Should we remain in Iraq?
Thompson says no but he's vested in a scenario of victory.
Paul gets booed for saying the best thing we can do is give Iraqis their country back.
McCain gets angry at the reference to Vietnam - we won all the battles but lost public opinion, he says.
This whole debate seems to be about attitudes. I'm not sure any of the attitudes I am seeing is a surprise.
Debate! Debate! 2
Would Jesus support the death penalty?
Mike Huckabee sidesteps the question. So does Tom Tancredo.
Next question: Do you believe every word in the Bible?
Giuliani believes parts of the Bible are allegorical. He gives examples.
Romney believes it's all the word of God.
Huckabee finds the middle ground. It's the word of God and it is allegorical in places.
Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable?
Would Jesus support the death penalty?
Mike Huckabee sidesteps the question. So does Tom Tancredo.
Next question: Do you believe every word in the Bible?
Giuliani believes parts of the Bible are allegorical. He gives examples.
Romney believes it's all the word of God.
Huckabee finds the middle ground. It's the word of God and it is allegorical in places.
Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable?
Debate! Debate! (GOP)
Rudy Giuliani and John McCain don't own guns. Mitt Romney doesn't really either, except that his son owns a couple and they are in his home.
Fascinating.
Two African-American men ask what these wannabe presidents will be done to lower violence in poor black neighborhoods. Mitt wants to make sure people stay married. I'm not sure if that will come in bill form or what. Rudy assures the two men that their neighborhood is no longer dangerous.
Abortion question... uh-oh, Rudy... What should a woman who gets an abortion be charged with? And what should the doctor be charged with? Nice questions, YouTube girl!
Ron Paul: No federal abortion police. But somehow it's a crime. He'd rather there be a state abortion police.
Fred Thompson: Overturning Roe v. Wade should be the number one priority. Like Paul, he wants to hold the doctors accountable.
Would Rudy sign a federal ban? No, he says. He'd leave it to the states to make that decision. Doesn't think it should be criminalized (except, I guess, if the states decide to make it a criminal act.)
Romney would be delighted to sign the bill. He thinks America is at a place where it wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Rudy Giuliani and John McCain don't own guns. Mitt Romney doesn't really either, except that his son owns a couple and they are in his home.
Fascinating.
Two African-American men ask what these wannabe presidents will be done to lower violence in poor black neighborhoods. Mitt wants to make sure people stay married. I'm not sure if that will come in bill form or what. Rudy assures the two men that their neighborhood is no longer dangerous.
Abortion question... uh-oh, Rudy... What should a woman who gets an abortion be charged with? And what should the doctor be charged with? Nice questions, YouTube girl!
Ron Paul: No federal abortion police. But somehow it's a crime. He'd rather there be a state abortion police.
Fred Thompson: Overturning Roe v. Wade should be the number one priority. Like Paul, he wants to hold the doctors accountable.
Would Rudy sign a federal ban? No, he says. He'd leave it to the states to make that decision. Doesn't think it should be criminalized (except, I guess, if the states decide to make it a criminal act.)
Romney would be delighted to sign the bill. He thinks America is at a place where it wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Man on man on man action
As the Republican presidential candidates prepare for tonight's official CNN-Youtube debate, pundits are predicting a Huckabee-Giuliani tag team on Romney, who is firmly sandwiched between the two men in an increasingly rough race.
Can Dirty Mitt give it as hard as he gets it? Get your DVRs ready.
That reminds me: 36 days until Iowa voters mislead us into thinking who we think will win the Feb. 5 primaries.
As the Republican presidential candidates prepare for tonight's official CNN-Youtube debate, pundits are predicting a Huckabee-Giuliani tag team on Romney, who is firmly sandwiched between the two men in an increasingly rough race.
Can Dirty Mitt give it as hard as he gets it? Get your DVRs ready.
That reminds me: 36 days until Iowa voters mislead us into thinking who we think will win the Feb. 5 primaries.
Nov 27, 2007
All politics is political
From the Sacramento Bee's now-free Capitol Alert:
When Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez postponed a floor session on health care until early December, he rescheduled the vote for the day the Assembly Republican caucus is slated to be in San Diego for its annual policy retreat.
From the Sacramento Bee's now-free Capitol Alert:
When Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez postponed a floor session on health care until early December, he rescheduled the vote for the day the Assembly Republican caucus is slated to be in San Diego for its annual policy retreat.
But despite the GOP lawmakers' plans to be hundreds of miles away, Núñez's office says the speaker won't reschedule the vote.
Maybe if a monster like Lyndon Johnson was behind this stunt we could expect a health care bill to come out of it. I don't think Núñez has the meanness about him.
Slap and tickle
Even television news journalists have had enough of the bullshit.
The Sacramento Bee reports that roving reporter Naj Alikhan bolted from "Good Day Sacramento" shortly after being asked to fake a bug bite to spice up a story about the West Nile virus. Alikhan said no. He's now a flak for the SEIU.
I remember a time when it was the people who would slap themselves that ended up in PR.
That's same show that brought you the classy beer-for-the-homeless stunt, by the way.
Recently I overheard one of the more well-known Sacramento reporters begging the governor's press aides for something, anything to cover.
He's a survivor; he's the future.
Even television news journalists have had enough of the bullshit.
The Sacramento Bee reports that roving reporter Naj Alikhan bolted from "Good Day Sacramento" shortly after being asked to fake a bug bite to spice up a story about the West Nile virus. Alikhan said no. He's now a flak for the SEIU.
I remember a time when it was the people who would slap themselves that ended up in PR.
That's same show that brought you the classy beer-for-the-homeless stunt, by the way.
Recently I overheard one of the more well-known Sacramento reporters begging the governor's press aides for something, anything to cover.
He's a survivor; he's the future.
Nov 26, 2007
Thanks a Lott
Senator Trent Lott might have upstaged frumpy former House Speaker Dennis Hastert in announcing his resignation today, but Hastert, who said back in October he planned to leave, will be the first one out the door, according to Politico.com.
Senator Trent Lott might have upstaged frumpy former House Speaker Dennis Hastert in announcing his resignation today, but Hastert, who said back in October he planned to leave, will be the first one out the door, according to Politico.com.
Raw copy editor
"For nearly 28 years," says Baltimore Sun copy desk AME John McIntyre, "I have been paid to read other journalists’ raw copy so that you don’t have to."
-snip-
"But editing, a fundamental element of journalism, appears to be a mystery to some top executives, who do not understand what goes on in their own shops."
Read the rest of his take on copy editor-less rags here.
-snip-
"But editing, a fundamental element of journalism, appears to be a mystery to some top executives, who do not understand what goes on in their own shops."
Read the rest of his take on copy editor-less rags here.
No pussy stories
Ben Bradlee gives his take on Rupert Murdoch over at Radar Online (via Romenesko):
"I think Rupert Murdoch is a better journalist than the rest of you [in the media] do," Ben Bradlee tells Charles Kaiser. Why do you say that? asks Kaiser. "Well, I think because he's smart, and he's not going to fill it up with pussy stories. And he's going to get good reporters. I think he does not want to fail on this."
Ben Bradlee gives his take on Rupert Murdoch over at Radar Online (via Romenesko):
"I think Rupert Murdoch is a better journalist than the rest of you [in the media] do," Ben Bradlee tells Charles Kaiser. Why do you say that? asks Kaiser. "Well, I think because he's smart, and he's not going to fill it up with pussy stories. And he's going to get good reporters. I think he does not want to fail on this."
Don't blame the reader
William Langewiesche is profiled in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle. Who knew he lived in Davis, Calif.?
Anyways, Langewiesche, now a writer for Vanity Fair, says something in the interview about writing that I think serves as an incisive critique of America's floundering regional newspapers:
"You have this precious, incredibly privileged thing, which is the reader's attention for a little while. And you can make the slightest misstep and the reader will put you down. People will say that the reader lives in a busy world. But that's not the reason why. The reason is that the writer blows it, and loses the reader's trust."
And so he inadvertently gets to the heart of the lie. Good journalism isn't dying because readers are too busy - they seem to have plenty of time to watch television and surf the net after all. However, a savvy newspaper owner interested in slashing expenses or changing the nature of his business might want journalists to think this busy world is passing them by.
And so the owner commits the "misstep" on purpose. He lets the writing languish - too little experience, too few editors - and then points to surveys that say readers are too distracted to want anything that will cost more money - more experienced reporters, more editors.
Self-fulfilling prophecy.
So how does a journalist struggle out of this tar pit of greed? Langewiesche's advice: "Write well."
William Langewiesche is profiled in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle. Who knew he lived in Davis, Calif.?
Anyways, Langewiesche, now a writer for Vanity Fair, says something in the interview about writing that I think serves as an incisive critique of America's floundering regional newspapers:
"You have this precious, incredibly privileged thing, which is the reader's attention for a little while. And you can make the slightest misstep and the reader will put you down. People will say that the reader lives in a busy world. But that's not the reason why. The reason is that the writer blows it, and loses the reader's trust."
And so he inadvertently gets to the heart of the lie. Good journalism isn't dying because readers are too busy - they seem to have plenty of time to watch television and surf the net after all. However, a savvy newspaper owner interested in slashing expenses or changing the nature of his business might want journalists to think this busy world is passing them by.
And so the owner commits the "misstep" on purpose. He lets the writing languish - too little experience, too few editors - and then points to surveys that say readers are too distracted to want anything that will cost more money - more experienced reporters, more editors.
Self-fulfilling prophecy.
So how does a journalist struggle out of this tar pit of greed? Langewiesche's advice: "Write well."
What rough beast is justice?
In today's Washington Post, Associated Press President Tom Curley revisits the saga of Bilal Hussein, an AP war photographerswho is awaiting a first court hearing after being detained more than a year ago.
Detained for what, you ask? Don't.
The court is in Iraq, which has a tricky evidentiary code. For instance, the concept of discovery appears to have been left out of the bundle of democratic values exported there post-liberation/occupation.
Let's, like Bush, keep our expectations low.
In today's Washington Post, Associated Press President Tom Curley revisits the saga of Bilal Hussein, an AP war photographerswho is awaiting a first court hearing after being detained more than a year ago.
Detained for what, you ask? Don't.
The court is in Iraq, which has a tricky evidentiary code. For instance, the concept of discovery appears to have been left out of the bundle of democratic values exported there post-liberation/occupation.
Let's, like Bush, keep our expectations low.
A man has to plan
Senator Trent Lott of Missouri announced he will resign from the Senate. He has another four years to go, so why now?
He says he might want to teach.
Do you think this has anything to do with it?: (from the New York Times) By resigning before the end of the year, Mr. Lott would beat the effective date for new ethics rules that double to two years the amount of time a former public official must wait before he can join a firm to lobby his former colleagues. The new rule applies to those who leave office “on or after” Dec. 31.
Senator Trent Lott of Missouri announced he will resign from the Senate. He has another four years to go, so why now?
He says he might want to teach.
Do you think this has anything to do with it?: (from the New York Times) By resigning before the end of the year, Mr. Lott would beat the effective date for new ethics rules that double to two years the amount of time a former public official must wait before he can join a firm to lobby his former colleagues. The new rule applies to those who leave office “on or after” Dec. 31.
A kind of leadership
The Boston Globe has an illuminating column about ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who recently called for the resignation of a judge he appointed to the Superior Court bench after she declined to hold a convicted killer on $50,000 bail for reasons that are hazy, but appear to be grounded in a non-activist judicial doctrine.
The killer fled to Washington State and allegedly killed a newlywed couple there, causing the Romney camp a lot of embarrassment in the process.
By calling for the judge's head, I'm sure Romney believes his rapid response team has gotten him well out in front of the story. It gave him the gumption to swat at Giuliani for having the temerity to turn this series of unfortunate events into something political.
I have nothing funny to say about this. Decide for yourself whether Romney seems ready for the White House.
The Boston Globe has an illuminating column about ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who recently called for the resignation of a judge he appointed to the Superior Court bench after she declined to hold a convicted killer on $50,000 bail for reasons that are hazy, but appear to be grounded in a non-activist judicial doctrine.
The killer fled to Washington State and allegedly killed a newlywed couple there, causing the Romney camp a lot of embarrassment in the process.
By calling for the judge's head, I'm sure Romney believes his rapid response team has gotten him well out in front of the story. It gave him the gumption to swat at Giuliani for having the temerity to turn this series of unfortunate events into something political.
I have nothing funny to say about this. Decide for yourself whether Romney seems ready for the White House.
Nov 25, 2007
Ballad of the jumped shark
Fake-DA Fred Thompson, whose candidacy I never understood and whose conservative stripes never seemed that solid, goes after Fox News for not being Fair to him or Balanced about his chances of winning his party's nomination.
Rest assured, Fred Thompson will not be our next president, so as a campaign issue this little dust-up will probably be forgotten in a few days time.
What's interesting, almost fascinating, is Thompson's raw anger at Fox for treating him like a politician, rather than as a friend. There's nothing new about politicians feigning scorn at reporters, but Thompson speaks like a spurned spouse. He truly believes he deserves more from his friends at Fox. And his friends at Fox respond as though they were conducting an intervention, being careful not to offend but remaining steadfast in their goal of letting Thompson know he has a problem.
This is where the machine gums up. When your own people stop pretending and start holding you to account for not doing what you say you're not doing ... Man, it just gets too convoluted. The fourth wall comes down, the suspension of disbelief is no longer be suspended.
Well, that's according to me. I'm sure those with the right kind of faith will find a way to forge ahead. Even jumped sharks have to go on swimming.
Fake-DA Fred Thompson, whose candidacy I never understood and whose conservative stripes never seemed that solid, goes after Fox News for not being Fair to him or Balanced about his chances of winning his party's nomination.
Rest assured, Fred Thompson will not be our next president, so as a campaign issue this little dust-up will probably be forgotten in a few days time.
What's interesting, almost fascinating, is Thompson's raw anger at Fox for treating him like a politician, rather than as a friend. There's nothing new about politicians feigning scorn at reporters, but Thompson speaks like a spurned spouse. He truly believes he deserves more from his friends at Fox. And his friends at Fox respond as though they were conducting an intervention, being careful not to offend but remaining steadfast in their goal of letting Thompson know he has a problem.
This is where the machine gums up. When your own people stop pretending and start holding you to account for not doing what you say you're not doing ... Man, it just gets too convoluted. The fourth wall comes down, the suspension of disbelief is no longer be suspended.
Well, that's according to me. I'm sure those with the right kind of faith will find a way to forge ahead. Even jumped sharks have to go on swimming.
A purpose-driven foreign policy
One of the quickest ways to success in life is to lower one's expectations. It can be very necessary if one is paralyzed by ideas of perfection, or merely convenient if one is lonely at a bar as last call approaches.
Which leads us to the White House. According to the New York Times, the Bush administration has lowered its expectations in Iraq as a way to rack up a few political victories.
This sudden rush of pragmatism seems less like wisdom and more like beer-goggle foreign policy. As the hour of last call approaches for the president, he seems anxious to trade on the relative success of his surge (binge) to get something, anything, even if it's a lot less than what he wanted going in.
A drinker's logic never dies.
One of the quickest ways to success in life is to lower one's expectations. It can be very necessary if one is paralyzed by ideas of perfection, or merely convenient if one is lonely at a bar as last call approaches.
Which leads us to the White House. According to the New York Times, the Bush administration has lowered its expectations in Iraq as a way to rack up a few political victories.
This sudden rush of pragmatism seems less like wisdom and more like beer-goggle foreign policy. As the hour of last call approaches for the president, he seems anxious to trade on the relative success of his surge (binge) to get something, anything, even if it's a lot less than what he wanted going in.
A drinker's logic never dies.
Nov 24, 2007
Putting the "i" in journalism*
Kevin Roderick at LA Observed links to another first-person profile from a staff journalist at the Los Angeles Times and then declares himself a fan: I'm all for more of these revealing first-person stories by newspaper journalists, a trend that includes the LAT's Scott Glover recounting on Thursday his disruptive search for his birth parents in Ireland and Scotland — ending with his giving up alcohol — and NYT national reporter (and former LAT staffer) Amy Harmon's funny story about confronting the genetic pluses and minuses in her DNA test.
I enjoyed the Harmon piece. She didn't so much profile herself as record her thoughts and actions after taking a DNA test. The other two stories are much more confessional, which begs the question: Would their stories make the paper if another reporter were told to write it?
I ask that question because journalists have a responsibility to report the unvarnished truth when profiling someone. You don't let the subject of the story dictate which facts are pertinent and which ones too embarrassing or hurtful to include.
If papers are going to ask (or allow) their staff to be this open with the readers, shouldn't the subjects be held to these same standards? How are these pieces "reported"? Do editors independently verify the author's claims? Do the editors conduct independent investigations to ensure nothing pertinent is left out? What happens when there are uncomfortable facts - divorces, arrests, estrangements - that are integral to the story, but that the author has left out?
Aren't these reporters essentially making themselves into public figures? If so, shouldn't they be held to the same rigorous standards as anyone else the paper chooses to profile? And maybe they are, but I tend to think co-workers get the benefit of the doubt when tough calls have to be made.
* One other point: The reason reporters try to limit how much information they share with sources is that sources can turn around and use that information against the reporter. This isn't a game of ego, but a responsibility to stand out of the way so the readers gets as much truth as possible. These first-person profiles have got to affect the kind of reporting these journalists are able to do in the future - but who will ever know?
Kevin Roderick at LA Observed links to another first-person profile from a staff journalist at the Los Angeles Times and then declares himself a fan: I'm all for more of these revealing first-person stories by newspaper journalists, a trend that includes the LAT's Scott Glover recounting on Thursday his disruptive search for his birth parents in Ireland and Scotland — ending with his giving up alcohol — and NYT national reporter (and former LAT staffer) Amy Harmon's funny story about confronting the genetic pluses and minuses in her DNA test.
I enjoyed the Harmon piece. She didn't so much profile herself as record her thoughts and actions after taking a DNA test. The other two stories are much more confessional, which begs the question: Would their stories make the paper if another reporter were told to write it?
I ask that question because journalists have a responsibility to report the unvarnished truth when profiling someone. You don't let the subject of the story dictate which facts are pertinent and which ones too embarrassing or hurtful to include.
If papers are going to ask (or allow) their staff to be this open with the readers, shouldn't the subjects be held to these same standards? How are these pieces "reported"? Do editors independently verify the author's claims? Do the editors conduct independent investigations to ensure nothing pertinent is left out? What happens when there are uncomfortable facts - divorces, arrests, estrangements - that are integral to the story, but that the author has left out?
Aren't these reporters essentially making themselves into public figures? If so, shouldn't they be held to the same rigorous standards as anyone else the paper chooses to profile? And maybe they are, but I tend to think co-workers get the benefit of the doubt when tough calls have to be made.
* One other point: The reason reporters try to limit how much information they share with sources is that sources can turn around and use that information against the reporter. This isn't a game of ego, but a responsibility to stand out of the way so the readers gets as much truth as possible. These first-person profiles have got to affect the kind of reporting these journalists are able to do in the future - but who will ever know?
Never enough booze
Wine grapes have overrun California farmland like wildfire and now it looks like a few sparks from America's binge culture have hit Midwest dairy farms.
Now, I've become quite familiar with alcohol in my years, and no matter how sophisticated our rationale for drinking spirits, the main reason remains the same: to feel the pleasant effects of intoxication.
I get the feeling that there's something going on in our America these days that demands a little buzz. Maybe it's just easier to swallow when it comes pumpkin-infused.
Wine grapes have overrun California farmland like wildfire and now it looks like a few sparks from America's binge culture have hit Midwest dairy farms.
Now, I've become quite familiar with alcohol in my years, and no matter how sophisticated our rationale for drinking spirits, the main reason remains the same: to feel the pleasant effects of intoxication.
I get the feeling that there's something going on in our America these days that demands a little buzz. Maybe it's just easier to swallow when it comes pumpkin-infused.
Nov 22, 2007
A few more questions...
Jeff Jarvis wants the future newsroom to be both an aggregator and producer of content. Aggregate what others do better than you, he says, and produce yourself the stuff you do best.
The more I think about this, the more ridiculous it sounds. If we're talking AP, then that model already exists. But if we aren't, I have a few questions about how we're supposed to do this and maintain quality and consistency.
Should we have huge copy editing rooms full of people leafing through Internet pages looking for things to aggregate and then rewriting (with who's permission?) the copy to fit a certain style? What about fact-checking? What about liability?
How, if no one is competing, will we know which free-lancers or blogs are really getting at the heart of an issue? Who will we trust locally to decide whose copy to use? And from whose ranks will these higher-level publications recruit when everyone local has stopped trying to compete for the bigger, non-hyperlocal stories?
Sorry to be an anchor on your Utopian vision, Jarvis, but I don't think you're thinking things through.
Jeff Jarvis wants the future newsroom to be both an aggregator and producer of content. Aggregate what others do better than you, he says, and produce yourself the stuff you do best.
The more I think about this, the more ridiculous it sounds. If we're talking AP, then that model already exists. But if we aren't, I have a few questions about how we're supposed to do this and maintain quality and consistency.
Should we have huge copy editing rooms full of people leafing through Internet pages looking for things to aggregate and then rewriting (with who's permission?) the copy to fit a certain style? What about fact-checking? What about liability?
How, if no one is competing, will we know which free-lancers or blogs are really getting at the heart of an issue? Who will we trust locally to decide whose copy to use? And from whose ranks will these higher-level publications recruit when everyone local has stopped trying to compete for the bigger, non-hyperlocal stories?
Sorry to be an anchor on your Utopian vision, Jarvis, but I don't think you're thinking things through.
Confessional journalism and You
Scott Glover of the Los Angeles Times decides to tell his own story about how he searched for his birth mother in Ireland.
I have nothing against Glover and find him to be an excellent reporter, but as I've said before, I'm not sure why a newspaper that serves the second most populous metropolitan area in the United States feels the need to turn inward to find compelling stories. The only reason Glover's life qualifies as unique enough to be told in a 700,000-plus circulation newspaper is because he works there.
Maybe this is a symptom of globalization, of the Internet and e-mail and cell phones: The easier it becomes to connect to the great big world, the more isolated we feel. The world begins to feel like a crowd and we are but faces, difficult to distinguish and easy to ignore. Vanity and selfishness have become our armor, our tools to create and maintain our identity as the flood of information washes over us. Each blog, Facebook page and confessional a self-contained ark... But who is really watching, reading? Who is paying attention to us?
Hey, it's part of the reason I decided to blog, even though I know this is a conversation I'm largely having with myself.
This little tangent brings me to another thought: This is the Decade of You. Or the YouDecade, to be more precise.
(A quick Google search tells me I'm not the first to have made this pronouncement. Christopher Hitchens does it here at Slate.com)
As the Time magazine cover naming "you" the person of the year showed, perhaps unintentionally, we are largely indistinguishable from one another in this Internet world, a world that feeds on the narcissism that has resulted from the destruction of the individual.
Why else do we celebrate the few that break through? Because it gives us hope that we might escape the You, too.
Think how unimportant you and I really are in this mass-market concept of "You." Time magazine put a mirror on the front cover so that anyone could be the You of the year, and everyone could. That really meant no one was. You and I are inconsequential. It is precisely because our thoughts, accomplishments, looks, beliefs, etc. don't rise above the crowd that we fit the category of You. Did you see that in the reflection?
So of course we want to do something or say something or confess something that makes us stand out - and why not use the tools at hand (the LA Times brand, the built-in circulation)? But, as I just found out, even a seemingly original thought has probably been thought before and is probably already posted somewhere on the Internet.
So, really, why would anyone pay any attention to me? Or to you?
Scott Glover of the Los Angeles Times decides to tell his own story about how he searched for his birth mother in Ireland.
I have nothing against Glover and find him to be an excellent reporter, but as I've said before, I'm not sure why a newspaper that serves the second most populous metropolitan area in the United States feels the need to turn inward to find compelling stories. The only reason Glover's life qualifies as unique enough to be told in a 700,000-plus circulation newspaper is because he works there.
Maybe this is a symptom of globalization, of the Internet and e-mail and cell phones: The easier it becomes to connect to the great big world, the more isolated we feel. The world begins to feel like a crowd and we are but faces, difficult to distinguish and easy to ignore. Vanity and selfishness have become our armor, our tools to create and maintain our identity as the flood of information washes over us. Each blog, Facebook page and confessional a self-contained ark... But who is really watching, reading? Who is paying attention to us?
Hey, it's part of the reason I decided to blog, even though I know this is a conversation I'm largely having with myself.
This little tangent brings me to another thought: This is the Decade of You. Or the YouDecade, to be more precise.
(A quick Google search tells me I'm not the first to have made this pronouncement. Christopher Hitchens does it here at Slate.com)
As the Time magazine cover naming "you" the person of the year showed, perhaps unintentionally, we are largely indistinguishable from one another in this Internet world, a world that feeds on the narcissism that has resulted from the destruction of the individual.
Why else do we celebrate the few that break through? Because it gives us hope that we might escape the You, too.
Think how unimportant you and I really are in this mass-market concept of "You." Time magazine put a mirror on the front cover so that anyone could be the You of the year, and everyone could. That really meant no one was. You and I are inconsequential. It is precisely because our thoughts, accomplishments, looks, beliefs, etc. don't rise above the crowd that we fit the category of You. Did you see that in the reflection?
So of course we want to do something or say something or confess something that makes us stand out - and why not use the tools at hand (the LA Times brand, the built-in circulation)? But, as I just found out, even a seemingly original thought has probably been thought before and is probably already posted somewhere on the Internet.
So, really, why would anyone pay any attention to me? Or to you?
Nov 21, 2007
Nothing to fear
Although Jeff Jarvis seems a little too anxious to dance on graves, I think he gets it mostly right in his predictions about the so-called death of newspapers. It isn't the death of journalism we should be worrying about, but the death of the industry that has grown up around it.
But, Lordy, how some in the industry don't want to die alone! Journalism's best protection is to separate itself (figuratively) from the dying beast and advocate for its own survival. To do that, it must know itself.
Unfortunately, Jarvis is a too vague in defining what journalism is:
(I also disagree that journalists have a responsibility to encourage or organize non-journalists to do reporting. That they take up their cameras and pens is a fine thing, but regular people have agendas and reporters aren't in the business of fostering them.)
Lamentably, Jarvis looks toward the future with too much excitement and fails to keep the past in sight. There is little point in arguing whether change will come or whether innovation is necessary, but I think protecting newsrooms from fragmenting should be a stated goal.
Over the decades, journalists organized under single, recognizable banners, toiled as a unit and strove to uphold ethics so that readers had some assurance the news could be trusted. Why, it wasn't long ago that we worried about the viral influences of Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass. Now we want to "hyperlink" to freelancers and free-range reporters who fall outside of newsroom oversight.
An experienced and cohesive newsroom can hold those in power accountable in ways that individuals often cannot, no matter how well intentioned they are. Lose that and this whole public service enterprise crumbles.
But, Lordy, how some in the industry don't want to die alone! Journalism's best protection is to separate itself (figuratively) from the dying beast and advocate for its own survival. To do that, it must know itself.
Unfortunately, Jarvis is a too vague in defining what journalism is:
"It helps organize a community’s knowledge so that a better-informed society can accomplish the goals it sets for itself."The same could be said of schools, archives and libraries. Journalism is a public service, I agree, but it is much more than a keen aggregater of knowledge.
(I also disagree that journalists have a responsibility to encourage or organize non-journalists to do reporting. That they take up their cameras and pens is a fine thing, but regular people have agendas and reporters aren't in the business of fostering them.)
Lamentably, Jarvis looks toward the future with too much excitement and fails to keep the past in sight. There is little point in arguing whether change will come or whether innovation is necessary, but I think protecting newsrooms from fragmenting should be a stated goal.
Over the decades, journalists organized under single, recognizable banners, toiled as a unit and strove to uphold ethics so that readers had some assurance the news could be trusted. Why, it wasn't long ago that we worried about the viral influences of Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass. Now we want to "hyperlink" to freelancers and free-range reporters who fall outside of newsroom oversight.
An experienced and cohesive newsroom can hold those in power accountable in ways that individuals often cannot, no matter how well intentioned they are. Lose that and this whole public service enterprise crumbles.
Nov 20, 2007
Giving them what they want
Television talk show host Chris Burrous of "Good Day Sacramento" makes a donation to the local homeless population as part of his reporting duties.
Co-host Stefanie Cruz writes in an e-mail that giving a case of beer to a homeless woman "was not the best decision."
Television talk show host Chris Burrous of "Good Day Sacramento" makes a donation to the local homeless population as part of his reporting duties.
Co-host Stefanie Cruz writes in an e-mail that giving a case of beer to a homeless woman "was not the best decision."
Nov 19, 2007
San Jose Mercury (your suggestion here)
The San Jose Mercury News wants to know what the public wants it to be. Different people have different opinions - some selfish, some wise, some silly. Howard Kurtz has a rundown of some of the changes being considered. Blowing everything up is a leading suggestion.
The newsroom must feel like a lost child that's discovered by cannibals: An editors' blog chronicling the debate is, at times, brutally candid. "Personality: The Merc has none. Or at least it's not one that's immediately apparent," one entry says. "We repeatedly heard that people felt the writing and storytelling was flat, monotonous. . . . Many Merc staffers remain cynical that the process is going to lead anywhere."
More cooks and fewer ingredients are bound to lead to the right recipe.
The San Jose Mercury News wants to know what the public wants it to be. Different people have different opinions - some selfish, some wise, some silly. Howard Kurtz has a rundown of some of the changes being considered. Blowing everything up is a leading suggestion.
The newsroom must feel like a lost child that's discovered by cannibals: An editors' blog chronicling the debate is, at times, brutally candid. "Personality: The Merc has none. Or at least it's not one that's immediately apparent," one entry says. "We repeatedly heard that people felt the writing and storytelling was flat, monotonous. . . . Many Merc staffers remain cynical that the process is going to lead anywhere."
More cooks and fewer ingredients are bound to lead to the right recipe.
Separation anxiety
As leading thinkers around the country attempt to chart a future course for newspapers - past the rocky shoals of declining revenues and through the whirlpool of changing consumer habits - their arguments have become a mashup of ideas that treat the different parts of the enterprise as a single thing.
This is often done intentionally, with a specific goal in mind. I'm not sure if I can call it dishonest, but it doesn't strike me as being that word's opposite.
Let's remember that "newspaper" does not denote a single entity but a conglomeration of enterprises that have come together under one roof over the decades for a mutual benefit. It is a kind of symbiosis, but one that does not need to be preserved for the sake of journalism.
Circulation, printing, marketing, accounting, customer relations, human resources, etc., all revolve around the newsroom. It is the shark, they the remora. The newsroom is why the newspaper exists. Let's not forget that as we adapt to the digital age.
Nor should we let those whose work revolves around us define the "problems" newsrooms face. The threat we now face does not come from the outside but is an internal battle for who will lead. When the foundations of newsroom begin to shake, be aware of who is doing the shaking. And then watch who rushes in to tell us the cause of the tremor and the best plan for our safety.
The business side of the operation want us off balance because it gives them the advantage. And it is time to tell them to fuck off.
That fuck off is not irrational, I assure you. I am keenly aware that someone needs to make money from my work so that I can be paid, so they can pay themselves, so the whole enterprise becomes a going concern. I do not dispute that different approaches to telling stories need to be tried and perfected because of the ways people digest news.
Having consented to those realities, I stand firm in my belief that editorial concerns should dominate our discussion as we migrate to the Web. The business crowd, no matter what their intentions, are incapable of showing us the way. They must bend to the editorial will.
Why? Because this isn't just any enterprise. We do not make widgets, as several good editors have pointed out. We are not in the business to be in business. There is something extremely special about news and it cannot be defined or packaged like other products. Those who will not consent to this reality will have to find someplace else to go with their money.
We reporters and editors who scowl at Readership Institute surveys, arguments for monetization of the news and hyperbole about our declining revenues are not Communists. Moreover, we are not afraid of computers, we do not buckle in the face of blogs, nor do we quake in fear that the youth of America will dig for us our graves. We are, however, tired of hucksters telling us we are afraid and confused, who tell us stories of monsters and Apocalypse and then promise to comfort us. We will not return ashamedly like an abused spouse to an unhealthy home.
Indeed, we reporters and editors thrive on the competition developing online. And we are just as aware that popular Web sites or publications that mention politics, culture, Hollywood or crime are not necessarily news and are not our competition. We are as resolute as ever that good journalism matters. We are not surprised that our career choice presents us with a level of financial uncertainty - it always has.
Maybe the corporate manager and owners who fund the institutes that write the studies that justify the slash and burn approach to "innovation" in the newsroom are the ones who need to grow a backbone. Somebody please inform them that the news business won't necessarily make them rich and the responsibilities of the job require sacrifice, steadfastness and character.
Let's again look at the various organs that make up the newspaper and ask ourselves which are the appendix and tonsils, those that seem to have outlasted their purpose; which suffer "problems" or are diseased; which are vital to the body; and which one stands atop the hierarchy. The answer to the last is editorial. Profit may be the heart that beats blood into the enterprise, but editorial is the brain for which that heart works.
Clearly there are newsrooms that have atrophied, there are journalistic practices that are misguided or need refinement, there is adaptation that needs to be done to keep the newsroom healthy and vital. But the only "problem" I hear being addressed is a manufactured one put forth by those who know how to sell widgets and shrink from the challenge of fostering journalism.
They whine that irascible journalists and unbending editorial guidelines stand in the way of a solution to economic decline. They tell us to change or get out of the way (change to what?). They invent meaningless jargon designed to impugn our most deeply held beliefs. They say our ethics and boring efforts at holding the powerful (including them) accountable are deficient, not up to the task of "future" needs. They repeat simplistic criticisms to bruise us. They feed our fear and foment our self-loathing. They call our resistance to them self-indulgent loftiness, our devotion to our mission self-destructive egotism.
This is why we built the wall between us and advertising. We can survive new symbioses, but not parasites.
The digital revolution is a change in habit. We need not be slaves to habit, however. The argument that to survive we must entertain or become servants to readers is a false one. The same thing that makes us dispensable to the entrepreneur who must adapt to the whims of consumer taste is the thing that makes us indispensable to a society that depends on the fact that we won't.
As leading thinkers around the country attempt to chart a future course for newspapers - past the rocky shoals of declining revenues and through the whirlpool of changing consumer habits - their arguments have become a mashup of ideas that treat the different parts of the enterprise as a single thing.
This is often done intentionally, with a specific goal in mind. I'm not sure if I can call it dishonest, but it doesn't strike me as being that word's opposite.
Let's remember that "newspaper" does not denote a single entity but a conglomeration of enterprises that have come together under one roof over the decades for a mutual benefit. It is a kind of symbiosis, but one that does not need to be preserved for the sake of journalism.
Circulation, printing, marketing, accounting, customer relations, human resources, etc., all revolve around the newsroom. It is the shark, they the remora. The newsroom is why the newspaper exists. Let's not forget that as we adapt to the digital age.
Nor should we let those whose work revolves around us define the "problems" newsrooms face. The threat we now face does not come from the outside but is an internal battle for who will lead. When the foundations of newsroom begin to shake, be aware of who is doing the shaking. And then watch who rushes in to tell us the cause of the tremor and the best plan for our safety.
The business side of the operation want us off balance because it gives them the advantage. And it is time to tell them to fuck off.
That fuck off is not irrational, I assure you. I am keenly aware that someone needs to make money from my work so that I can be paid, so they can pay themselves, so the whole enterprise becomes a going concern. I do not dispute that different approaches to telling stories need to be tried and perfected because of the ways people digest news.
Having consented to those realities, I stand firm in my belief that editorial concerns should dominate our discussion as we migrate to the Web. The business crowd, no matter what their intentions, are incapable of showing us the way. They must bend to the editorial will.
Why? Because this isn't just any enterprise. We do not make widgets, as several good editors have pointed out. We are not in the business to be in business. There is something extremely special about news and it cannot be defined or packaged like other products. Those who will not consent to this reality will have to find someplace else to go with their money.
We reporters and editors who scowl at Readership Institute surveys, arguments for monetization of the news and hyperbole about our declining revenues are not Communists. Moreover, we are not afraid of computers, we do not buckle in the face of blogs, nor do we quake in fear that the youth of America will dig for us our graves. We are, however, tired of hucksters telling us we are afraid and confused, who tell us stories of monsters and Apocalypse and then promise to comfort us. We will not return ashamedly like an abused spouse to an unhealthy home.
Indeed, we reporters and editors thrive on the competition developing online. And we are just as aware that popular Web sites or publications that mention politics, culture, Hollywood or crime are not necessarily news and are not our competition. We are as resolute as ever that good journalism matters. We are not surprised that our career choice presents us with a level of financial uncertainty - it always has.
Maybe the corporate manager and owners who fund the institutes that write the studies that justify the slash and burn approach to "innovation" in the newsroom are the ones who need to grow a backbone. Somebody please inform them that the news business won't necessarily make them rich and the responsibilities of the job require sacrifice, steadfastness and character.
Let's again look at the various organs that make up the newspaper and ask ourselves which are the appendix and tonsils, those that seem to have outlasted their purpose; which suffer "problems" or are diseased; which are vital to the body; and which one stands atop the hierarchy. The answer to the last is editorial. Profit may be the heart that beats blood into the enterprise, but editorial is the brain for which that heart works.
Clearly there are newsrooms that have atrophied, there are journalistic practices that are misguided or need refinement, there is adaptation that needs to be done to keep the newsroom healthy and vital. But the only "problem" I hear being addressed is a manufactured one put forth by those who know how to sell widgets and shrink from the challenge of fostering journalism.
They whine that irascible journalists and unbending editorial guidelines stand in the way of a solution to economic decline. They tell us to change or get out of the way (change to what?). They invent meaningless jargon designed to impugn our most deeply held beliefs. They say our ethics and boring efforts at holding the powerful (including them) accountable are deficient, not up to the task of "future" needs. They repeat simplistic criticisms to bruise us. They feed our fear and foment our self-loathing. They call our resistance to them self-indulgent loftiness, our devotion to our mission self-destructive egotism.
This is why we built the wall between us and advertising. We can survive new symbioses, but not parasites.
The digital revolution is a change in habit. We need not be slaves to habit, however. The argument that to survive we must entertain or become servants to readers is a false one. The same thing that makes us dispensable to the entrepreneur who must adapt to the whims of consumer taste is the thing that makes us indispensable to a society that depends on the fact that we won't.
Rumor has it
Without pomposity or hyperbole, James Vesely of the Seattle Times gives a bit of history of the newspaper and states what I think is the real challenge in the digital age: adapting to the Internet without succumbing to the temptation to alter our mission.
He says: "Foremost, a decent newspaper is the enemy of rumor and a citizen of its place. Blogs are not the enemy of rumor, nor is talk radio or cable television. Rumor is not the substitute for truth, and it takes journalism to sift for truth."
Without pomposity or hyperbole, James Vesely of the Seattle Times gives a bit of history of the newspaper and states what I think is the real challenge in the digital age: adapting to the Internet without succumbing to the temptation to alter our mission.
He says: "Foremost, a decent newspaper is the enemy of rumor and a citizen of its place. Blogs are not the enemy of rumor, nor is talk radio or cable television. Rumor is not the substitute for truth, and it takes journalism to sift for truth."
Nov 17, 2007
They want to save your soul
I guess the two Juans over at the NAA blog beat me to the religious angle, with their S.O.U.L. solution to preserving quality journalism.
S stands for Sensuality
O for Omnipresent
U for Unique
L for Light and Local
It's a little goofy, but at least they sound like they actually like journalism and journalists.
I guess the two Juans over at the NAA blog beat me to the religious angle, with their S.O.U.L. solution to preserving quality journalism.
S stands for Sensuality
O for Omnipresent
U for Unique
L for Light and Local
It's a little goofy, but at least they sound like they actually like journalism and journalists.
Glossolalia
Mary Nesbitt speaks about her vision for the future of newspapers with the fervor of a religious fanatic. A member of Medill's Readership Institute, which I've described as a cult on more than one occasion, she has definite ideas of what news editors must do to be, not just successful, but highly successful.
She states her case in today's edition of "Imagining the Future of Newspapers" with a tone of moral certainty. Don't be boring, she tells us. Be enterprising, she admonishes. And, above all, let market research show you the way.
Tomorrow's editors will reject the hubris of editorial judgment, built on decades of faulty custom and tradition, and accept that there is a higher power: the reader's judgment, rigorously measured through focus groups, Web hits and behavioral models. Good editors will come to "advocate as vigorously for the self-defined needs of readers as they do for the public’s right to know and the First Amendment. Customer-centric journalism? You bet, and unapologetically so."
Praise be. But there will be those who resist, who will refuse to believe. Fortunately, Nesbitt reminds us, the Lord has delivered an economic downturn with which to smite the troublesome holdouts.
"But editors’ smart bosses will realize this new journalism can’t be flipped on like a light switch. It will take training and retraining; replacing people; hiring a different type of journalist; enlarging the definition of what a journalist does, what journalism is for and who can engage in journalism; and demanding a different kind of graduate from journalism schools."
What is the payoff for the convert? They will learn to reject insipid journalism and replace it with "things that grip, tickle, astonish, befriend and reward readers" in ways they have never known.
That does sound heavenly.
But peel back the business jargon Nesbitt and other RIers are being paid handsomely to inject into journalism, accept that most good editors already want to serve the readers and avoid "boring" journalism, and tone down the fanatical prose and what are we left with here? In my atheistic opinion: Nothing but babble.
Nov 16, 2007
The real Hollywood story
The New York Times reminds us that not everyone is rich in Hollywood. Just Larry David.
The New York Times reminds us that not everyone is rich in Hollywood. Just Larry David.
The comely breasts of justice
Al Kamen of the Washington Post tells the story of former AG John Aschcroft getting reunited with "The Spirit of Justice," the bosomy statue he so famously draped over in what would be the first of many cover ups at the Justice Department.
The Post has a fine photo of their meeting down page.
Let the eagle soar.
Al Kamen of the Washington Post tells the story of former AG John Aschcroft getting reunited with "The Spirit of Justice," the bosomy statue he so famously draped over in what would be the first of many cover ups at the Justice Department.
The Post has a fine photo of their meeting down page.
Let the eagle soar.
The age of new-new journalism
In our post-newspaper world, are these questions about James Carville's bias even relevant anymore? Every reporter has a blog and many political reporters act as pundits, spouting opinions with little care about the consequences to coverage. Bright lines are blurred in response to audience demand for more meaningful, more bloggy reporting, etc.
Even the New York Times live-blogged the debate and essentially scored the answers.
Aside: blogs will never be taken seriously until we find a new word to describe them.
In our post-newspaper world, are these questions about James Carville's bias even relevant anymore? Every reporter has a blog and many political reporters act as pundits, spouting opinions with little care about the consequences to coverage. Bright lines are blurred in response to audience demand for more meaningful, more bloggy reporting, etc.
Even the New York Times live-blogged the debate and essentially scored the answers.
Aside: blogs will never be taken seriously until we find a new word to describe them.
Oy
Politico reporters James Kotecki and Mike Allen have an excruciatingly bad post-debate video that's worth watching as a how-not-to-do-it exercise.
Looking like something a couple of high school wanna be comics would post to Youtube, Kotecki and Allen are as bland in their analysis as their cereal choices.
Note to Kotecki: Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus, but use all gently; for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say, the whirlwind of passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness.
Note to both: Leave the product placement and the comedy to Stephen Colbert, and either give me a reason to sit through this ego-stroking experiment or shut it down.
Politico reporters James Kotecki and Mike Allen have an excruciatingly bad post-debate video that's worth watching as a how-not-to-do-it exercise.
Looking like something a couple of high school wanna be comics would post to Youtube, Kotecki and Allen are as bland in their analysis as their cereal choices.
Note to Kotecki: Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus, but use all gently; for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say, the whirlwind of passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness.
Note to both: Leave the product placement and the comedy to Stephen Colbert, and either give me a reason to sit through this ego-stroking experiment or shut it down.
We think alike
Paul McLeary at CJR is nonplussed at Newsweek's decision to hire Kos and Rove as columnists.
I had the same reaction, or nonreaction, when I heard the news. I got bored with Daily Kos in 2004 after discovering it in 2004. Rove is only a monster when he's behind closed doors. Out in the open, he's plump, doughy and nonthreatening.
And since I'm not interested in them, neither should you be.
Paul McLeary at CJR is nonplussed at Newsweek's decision to hire Kos and Rove as columnists.
I had the same reaction, or nonreaction, when I heard the news. I got bored with Daily Kos in 2004 after discovering it in 2004. Rove is only a monster when he's behind closed doors. Out in the open, he's plump, doughy and nonthreatening.
And since I'm not interested in them, neither should you be.
Outsourcing hyperlocal
The newspaper chain I used to work for buys into the hyperlocal concept like most chains. At the same time, management decided to go hypolocal with many of its operations. The concept of "cheaper" is clearly more resonant.
First to be outsourced were the entertainment and sports desks. Second to go was the copy desk, which now writes headlines that are so obscure and bland it surprises me that anyone clicks on the stories. The third victim was the printing press. The papers now come from Valencia - most of the time.
Today, there was a problem. Because of some snafu, most subscribers did not receive a paper and most won't until tomorrow, when the Friday news will be a tad stale.
Maybe this is a behavioral experiment of some sort.
Any calls yet?
The newspaper chain I used to work for buys into the hyperlocal concept like most chains. At the same time, management decided to go hypolocal with many of its operations. The concept of "cheaper" is clearly more resonant.
First to be outsourced were the entertainment and sports desks. Second to go was the copy desk, which now writes headlines that are so obscure and bland it surprises me that anyone clicks on the stories. The third victim was the printing press. The papers now come from Valencia - most of the time.
Today, there was a problem. Because of some snafu, most subscribers did not receive a paper and most won't until tomorrow, when the Friday news will be a tad stale.
Maybe this is a behavioral experiment of some sort.
Any calls yet?
Local
Mindy McAdams says in her NAA blog entry that local papers should cover local things. Revolutionary. Why didn't local papers think of that?
Mindy McAdams says in her NAA blog entry that local papers should cover local things. Revolutionary. Why didn't local papers think of that?
Happy ending
Over at the NAA blog, Andrew Nachison, a business consultant, pushes back against the incessant tide of naysayers and charlatans who tout new newspapers and asks that they first remind themselves why they're in this profession.
"The purpose of newspapers is not to produce better newspapers, or to sell more of them, with more advertising. It’s not to build better Web sites for more visitors. It’s not to maximize revenue and minimize expense. It’s not to dominate or “own” markets. It’s not to maximize shareholder value."
Heresy! Apparently he hasn't read Kane Cochran's screed yet.
I'm not sure I agree with Nachison's ultimate point that newspapers are simply about making the world better. Tough to get traction on that one, but at least he tries to make a point about why journalists do what they do. I do, however, agree wholeheartedly that newspapers need to reconsider their very purpose before rolling out slapdash innovation after slapdash innovation (Singleton, I'm looking at you):
"The alternative is – what? Launch some blogs? Create a social network? Install a new content management system? Make sure you’ve got nice mobile services? Outsource your printing? Run an advertising sales blitz? Put pictures in your classifieds? Sell photos? Build a new newsroom? Buy some video cameras? Trim your paper size? Put names on your editorials? Allow ordinary people to comment on your cherished articles?
"It’s all meaningless, futile and pointless – unless there’s a point to begin with."
Amen, sister.
Over at the NAA blog, Andrew Nachison, a business consultant, pushes back against the incessant tide of naysayers and charlatans who tout new newspapers and asks that they first remind themselves why they're in this profession.
"The purpose of newspapers is not to produce better newspapers, or to sell more of them, with more advertising. It’s not to build better Web sites for more visitors. It’s not to maximize revenue and minimize expense. It’s not to dominate or “own” markets. It’s not to maximize shareholder value."
Heresy! Apparently he hasn't read Kane Cochran's screed yet.
I'm not sure I agree with Nachison's ultimate point that newspapers are simply about making the world better. Tough to get traction on that one, but at least he tries to make a point about why journalists do what they do. I do, however, agree wholeheartedly that newspapers need to reconsider their very purpose before rolling out slapdash innovation after slapdash innovation (Singleton, I'm looking at you):
"The alternative is – what? Launch some blogs? Create a social network? Install a new content management system? Make sure you’ve got nice mobile services? Outsource your printing? Run an advertising sales blitz? Put pictures in your classifieds? Sell photos? Build a new newsroom? Buy some video cameras? Trim your paper size? Put names on your editorials? Allow ordinary people to comment on your cherished articles?
"It’s all meaningless, futile and pointless – unless there’s a point to begin with."
Amen, sister.
Nov 15, 2007
Debate! Debate! 4
The wrap-up on CNN. Is James Carville slurring?
In watching the highlights, Obama and Edwards look like two very weak men trying their best to act tough in front of a woman they're intimidated by.
Perhaps they should stop listening to reporters and realize you don't attack the front-runner, you eclipse the front-runner. Let others do the attacking.
The wrap-up on CNN. Is James Carville slurring?
In watching the highlights, Obama and Edwards look like two very weak men trying their best to act tough in front of a woman they're intimidated by.
Perhaps they should stop listening to reporters and realize you don't attack the front-runner, you eclipse the front-runner. Let others do the attacking.
Debate! Debate! 3
Obama reaches toward the middle on foreign policy.
Hillary is a much better speaker than anyone else on the stage.
I think we can find a Republican in the Senate who questions Joe Biden's judgment. Snipe hunt.
Is Biden running to be president of the Senate?
Richardson is looking heavy and rough. I'm not saying that disqualifies him, but it probably does. That, and he feels like a cabinet secretary, not a president.
Oooh, a fun question for Clinton! Diamonds and pearls. Fantastic conclusion. Yawn.
Obama reaches toward the middle on foreign policy.
Hillary is a much better speaker than anyone else on the stage.
I think we can find a Republican in the Senate who questions Joe Biden's judgment. Snipe hunt.
Is Biden running to be president of the Senate?
Richardson is looking heavy and rough. I'm not saying that disqualifies him, but it probably does. That, and he feels like a cabinet secretary, not a president.
Oooh, a fun question for Clinton! Diamonds and pearls. Fantastic conclusion. Yawn.
Debate! Debate! 2
Dennis Kucinich wants a healer in the White House and his rabid fans love to hear it. Frankly, he needs to step aside. Unless he's going to be a trouble-maker I don't want to listen anymore.
Oh snap! Clinton breaks one off on GWB - he doesn't understand how our government works. If she keeps that up, I might damn well listen to her. But then I just had a glass of wine.
Obama, you seem earnest but I don't know what you're saying. Do you?
John Edwards is still trying to make that closing statement to the American people. When did he become the hall monitor?
Dennis Kucinich wants a healer in the White House and his rabid fans love to hear it. Frankly, he needs to step aside. Unless he's going to be a trouble-maker I don't want to listen anymore.
Oh snap! Clinton breaks one off on GWB - he doesn't understand how our government works. If she keeps that up, I might damn well listen to her. But then I just had a glass of wine.
Obama, you seem earnest but I don't know what you're saying. Do you?
John Edwards is still trying to make that closing statement to the American people. When did he become the hall monitor?
Debate! Debate!
Catching the tail-end of the Democratic debate in Las Vegas. People are booing attacks on Clinton like it was Jerry Springer. Is Obama going to pull Hillary's hair? "No he didn't say that was an answer he expected to hear from Mitt Romney!"
The candidates are being disagreeable to show they disagree, but I bet no one will know what the differences are when this charade is over. Either debate for real or have a journalist aski penetrating questions and then follow up when the bullshit stream begins. And I'm not talking about Chris Matthews or Tim Russert, the Michelin men of CW. Both have gone down rabbit holes trying to appear hard-hitting.
Side note: Joe Biden has become the funny drunk uncle. I might vote for him just for that...although his answer on the Supreme Court question was fairly stupid.
Don't worry Christopher, there will be no Dodd administration.
Catching the tail-end of the Democratic debate in Las Vegas. People are booing attacks on Clinton like it was Jerry Springer. Is Obama going to pull Hillary's hair? "No he didn't say that was an answer he expected to hear from Mitt Romney!"
The candidates are being disagreeable to show they disagree, but I bet no one will know what the differences are when this charade is over. Either debate for real or have a journalist aski penetrating questions and then follow up when the bullshit stream begins. And I'm not talking about Chris Matthews or Tim Russert, the Michelin men of CW. Both have gone down rabbit holes trying to appear hard-hitting.
Side note: Joe Biden has become the funny drunk uncle. I might vote for him just for that...although his answer on the Supreme Court question was fairly stupid.
Don't worry Christopher, there will be no Dodd administration.
Lindsey gets hyperlocal
What do Lindsey Lohan, Barry Bonds and an escaped albino snake have in common?
Yes, but they also make prominent appearances on today's San Gabriel Valley Tribune web page.
The Lohan story had only reached #7 on the most viewed list as of this writing. Bonds and the snake were breaking news and had yet to register.
What do Lindsey Lohan, Barry Bonds and an escaped albino snake have in common?
Yes, but they also make prominent appearances on today's San Gabriel Valley Tribune web page.
The Lohan story had only reached #7 on the most viewed list as of this writing. Bonds and the snake were breaking news and had yet to register.
Kane Cochran takes long tug off Kool-Aid jug*
In today's imaginings over at the NAA blog, Kane Cochran gives us a giddy rundown of his newspaper of the future, chockablock full of modules and platforms and filtering devices designed to track your every mouse click and tailor, then re-tailor, then tailor again, the Web page in response to your movements.
At the heart of his Utopian enterprise are twin concepts called behavioral targeting and personalization. Their aim is to construct an online persona of you - an avatar if you will - whose habits can be translated into a virtual spider's web of pictures, stories, links and "smart ads" targeted directly at you.
Cochran, whose job title sounds like the silver jumpsuits of the future look, is made ecstatic by all of this:
"Behavioral targeting has evolved since 2007, and now is powered by a combination of the user’s profile information, behavior and previous ad interaction. Ad sizes are smaller, but better integrated into the content on the page. Rich media advertising contains advanced algorithms and connects to databases with vast creative resources. Advertising campaigns automatically analyze performance and weed out poorly performing creative, replacing it on the fly with new creative. Ad-serving networks are fueling the growth and breadth of advertising options on newspaper Web sites, allowing site visitors the power to dictate what advertising they see on the site. In an effort to create an engaging experience, site visitors now have the option to select specific advertising companies or advertising categories."
Whoa, Cochran, you've said a mouth full! It's as though you just learned a foreign language and can't help but take pleasure in speaking it. Can you make that a little clearer to me?
"Each movement a visitor makes is calculated, analyzed, scored and stored in a database."
Ah! I guess that's only troubling when the NSA does it.
So how does being tracked benefit me?
Apparently it has only some to do with news and a lot to do with buying stuff. To wit:
"At 8 a.m., the ad creative displays a coffee, a doughnut and a coupon. The coupon of course, can be 'flipped' over to your mobile phone and taken with you. Around noon, the ad creative changes to display a sandwich and large drink. Around 3 p.m., the ad changes again, this time promoting an iced coffee. The ads even allow you to pre-order, pay for your drink and set a time for pickup. In short, each advertisement is a mini-application. Since you have interacted with the ad in the past, it even remembers you enjoy an Iced Mocha and suggests a new drink, an Iced Pumpkin Spice Latte. This deeply personalized experience offers a compelling opportunity for local businesses, bringing back the 'local corner store' mentality and allowing advertisers to attract the exact consumer they are looking for."
I don't remember the local store following me around like that, but I get the picture: My local newspaper will have become so hyperlocal that it will include updates of my hunger pangs.
* I forgot the best part. All of this behavioral tracking and targeted advertising is about one thing - no, not making money you cynic. It's about "giving control of our Web site to you."
City Council Votes to Buy Parcel, The Movie
Sometimes writers make arguments just to start an argument. Maybe that's what Albert Kim was doing when he said news writers should be paid residuals the same as writers in Hollywood.
As someone who lacks money and would like to get more of it for my work, I understand the sentiment that news writers should be valued more by the companies that profit them. I've even written about it here.
Residuals don't seem to me to be the way, however.
In Hollywood, writers craft stories to entertain and earn money. In newsrooms, writers craft stories to inform and are supposed to be insulated from profit concerns. Residuals are paid to a Hollywood writers when the product of their work is repackaged for sale and more money is made - it's their business plan. News stories are rarely repackaged for sale and reporters aren't supposed to avoid plans that includes making more money depending on the stories they choose to tell.
Reporters should be treated as professionals, not replaceable widgets, and that means better compensation. And maybe there are rare cases when residuals would be a good idea, but overall I think it's a slippery slope that will undermine responsible journalism.
I'll leave you with a more cogent point, made by Counterglow at Huffington Post:
Why Don't Journalists Get Residuals?
There's an easy answer to this: Good writing is hard to do and requires talent. Studio execs might curse and beat up their secretaries over the strike, but they know they need good writers to make good films. Journalists, on the other hand, understand that the "Top Ten Sexiest Celebs" list, which can be typed up by a chimp, will get more readers/viewers than a Watergate-quality investigative piece.Therefore Hollywood writers can strike for residuals. Journalists understand they can be replaced by a high school kid with a camera phone and a laptop.
Stay positive.
Sometimes writers make arguments just to start an argument. Maybe that's what Albert Kim was doing when he said news writers should be paid residuals the same as writers in Hollywood.
As someone who lacks money and would like to get more of it for my work, I understand the sentiment that news writers should be valued more by the companies that profit them. I've even written about it here.
Residuals don't seem to me to be the way, however.
In Hollywood, writers craft stories to entertain and earn money. In newsrooms, writers craft stories to inform and are supposed to be insulated from profit concerns. Residuals are paid to a Hollywood writers when the product of their work is repackaged for sale and more money is made - it's their business plan. News stories are rarely repackaged for sale and reporters aren't supposed to avoid plans that includes making more money depending on the stories they choose to tell.
Reporters should be treated as professionals, not replaceable widgets, and that means better compensation. And maybe there are rare cases when residuals would be a good idea, but overall I think it's a slippery slope that will undermine responsible journalism.
I'll leave you with a more cogent point, made by Counterglow at Huffington Post:
Why Don't Journalists Get Residuals?
There's an easy answer to this: Good writing is hard to do and requires talent. Studio execs might curse and beat up their secretaries over the strike, but they know they need good writers to make good films. Journalists, on the other hand, understand that the "Top Ten Sexiest Celebs" list, which can be typed up by a chimp, will get more readers/viewers than a Watergate-quality investigative piece.Therefore Hollywood writers can strike for residuals. Journalists understand they can be replaced by a high school kid with a camera phone and a laptop.
Stay positive.
Nov 14, 2007
Our Artisan President
Are you more like Reagan and Clinton or Carter and Nixon?
Find the answer by taking the Kiersey Temperament Sorter personality test, which divides people into four distinct groups: artisan, guardian, idealist and rational.
Clinton and Reagan artisans, the most common personality type for presidents, according to today's story in Politico. Nixon and Carter were guardians, the most common personality type overall.
John Kerry was an idealist: "No Idealist has ever been elected president — information that might have been useful to the Democratic Party in 2003," writes Politico author Aoifer McCarthy.
I, too, am an idealist, which means I can't be president either.
Now give the test to your kids and watch their dreams die.
Are you more like Reagan and Clinton or Carter and Nixon?
Find the answer by taking the Kiersey Temperament Sorter personality test, which divides people into four distinct groups: artisan, guardian, idealist and rational.
Clinton and Reagan artisans, the most common personality type for presidents, according to today's story in Politico. Nixon and Carter were guardians, the most common personality type overall.
John Kerry was an idealist: "No Idealist has ever been elected president — information that might have been useful to the Democratic Party in 2003," writes Politico author Aoifer McCarthy.
I, too, am an idealist, which means I can't be president either.
Now give the test to your kids and watch their dreams die.
Indefensible
The California Fair Political Practices Commission has taken the extraordinary step of requiring politicians to use money raised for their legal defense funds for legal defense.
As reported in today's Sacramento Bee, politicians not only raise money without disclosing why they need to defend themselves, but then funnel the money to cover such crucial legal strategies as day spa treatments, golf outings and chartered flights.
Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, gets singled out for his creativity. "Nearly half the money raised for his legal defense (out of a total of $150,000) went toward 'fundraising' expenses at lavish venues -- a Lake Tahoe day spa, two Hawaiian restaurants and one of the Pacific Northwest's premier golf courses, Bandon Dunes, in Oregon. Calderon also spent $7,092 on a chartered flight from Sacramento to Oregon, records showed."
Bold leadership pays off.
The California Fair Political Practices Commission has taken the extraordinary step of requiring politicians to use money raised for their legal defense funds for legal defense.
As reported in today's Sacramento Bee, politicians not only raise money without disclosing why they need to defend themselves, but then funnel the money to cover such crucial legal strategies as day spa treatments, golf outings and chartered flights.
Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, gets singled out for his creativity. "Nearly half the money raised for his legal defense (out of a total of $150,000) went toward 'fundraising' expenses at lavish venues -- a Lake Tahoe day spa, two Hawaiian restaurants and one of the Pacific Northwest's premier golf courses, Bandon Dunes, in Oregon. Calderon also spent $7,092 on a chartered flight from Sacramento to Oregon, records showed."
Bold leadership pays off.
Did you say tax?
NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman wonders how the Democrat could lose the following debate:
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE: “My Democratic opponent, true to form, wants to raise your taxes. Yes, now he wants to raise your taxes at the gasoline pump by $1 a gallon. Another tax-and-spend liberal who wants to get into your pocket.”
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: “Yes, my opponent is right. I do favor a gasoline tax phased in over 12 months. But let’s get one thing straight: My opponent and I are both for a tax. I just prefer that my taxes go to the U.S. Treasury, and he’s ready to see his go to the Russian, Venezuelan, Saudi and Iranian treasuries. His tax finances people who hate us. Mine would offset some of our payroll taxes, pay down our deficit, strengthen our dollar, stimulate energy efficiency and shore up Social Security. It’s called win-win-win-win-win for America. My opponent’s strategy is sit back, let the market work and watch America lose-lose-lose-lose-lose.”
Friedman says, "If you can’t win that debate, you don’t belong in politics."
Friedman is not in politics.
NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman wonders how the Democrat could lose the following debate:
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE: “My Democratic opponent, true to form, wants to raise your taxes. Yes, now he wants to raise your taxes at the gasoline pump by $1 a gallon. Another tax-and-spend liberal who wants to get into your pocket.”
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: “Yes, my opponent is right. I do favor a gasoline tax phased in over 12 months. But let’s get one thing straight: My opponent and I are both for a tax. I just prefer that my taxes go to the U.S. Treasury, and he’s ready to see his go to the Russian, Venezuelan, Saudi and Iranian treasuries. His tax finances people who hate us. Mine would offset some of our payroll taxes, pay down our deficit, strengthen our dollar, stimulate energy efficiency and shore up Social Security. It’s called win-win-win-win-win for America. My opponent’s strategy is sit back, let the market work and watch America lose-lose-lose-lose-lose.”
Friedman says, "If you can’t win that debate, you don’t belong in politics."
Friedman is not in politics.
Politics is percetion is reality
Salon's Glenn Greenwald rails against "the Beltway media class" for labeling Rudy Giuliani a moderate, saying other words are needed to describe a man who embraces the endorsement of a known anti-Semite and homophobe, itches to strike preemptively at Iran and speaks "glibly" about torture.
Greenwald has a point. And yet 60% of Republicans say Giuliani is the most moderate of all, according to a recent Rasmussen poll. Perhaps the Beltway boys are grading on a curve?
This primary campaign feels like a drunken masquerade party, full of strangers in bad costumes, false assumptions and giddy confusion. And yet we're asked to sort out who's who long before the unmasking (scheduled for sometime after Nov. 5). Good luck, you'll need it.
Salon's Glenn Greenwald rails against "the Beltway media class" for labeling Rudy Giuliani a moderate, saying other words are needed to describe a man who embraces the endorsement of a known anti-Semite and homophobe, itches to strike preemptively at Iran and speaks "glibly" about torture.
Greenwald has a point. And yet 60% of Republicans say Giuliani is the most moderate of all, according to a recent Rasmussen poll. Perhaps the Beltway boys are grading on a curve?
This primary campaign feels like a drunken masquerade party, full of strangers in bad costumes, false assumptions and giddy confusion. And yet we're asked to sort out who's who long before the unmasking (scheduled for sometime after Nov. 5). Good luck, you'll need it.
A slap in the Facebook
Comment made by Mandy Grunwald and Mark Penn, two of Hillary Clinton's top political advisers, have triggered an "official petition" against Clinton on Facebook.com, according to Washington & Wilshire.
The remarks, captured at Saturday's Jefferson Jackson dinner, were reported by Roger Simon in Politico and aimed at Barack Obama supporters: “Our people look like caucus-goers,” Grunwald said, “and his people look like they are 18. Penn said they look like Facebook.” Penn added, “Only a few of their people look like they could vote in any state.”
Oh snap.
Contempt rarely speaks of confidence, or wisdom, or confidence.
Comment made by Mandy Grunwald and Mark Penn, two of Hillary Clinton's top political advisers, have triggered an "official petition" against Clinton on Facebook.com, according to Washington & Wilshire.
The remarks, captured at Saturday's Jefferson Jackson dinner, were reported by Roger Simon in Politico and aimed at Barack Obama supporters: “Our people look like caucus-goers,” Grunwald said, “and his people look like they are 18. Penn said they look like Facebook.” Penn added, “Only a few of their people look like they could vote in any state.”
Oh snap.
Contempt rarely speaks of confidence, or wisdom, or confidence.
New poll gives Clinton, Giuiliani edge
A new New York Times/CBS poll shows Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire find both Barack Obama and John Edwards to be more genuine than Hillary Clinton, and therefore less prepared to be president.
Clinton has a lead in both states, although the margin in Iowa is tiny, making for a virtual dead heat between the three leading Democratic contenders.
The results suggest Democrats are having another John Kerry moment in trying to decide whether to settle on the electable rather than the inspiring. Clinton's antisocial campaign style has given her the edge on this front, as her overcareful ways give her a dangerous appearance - she's the most likely to pull a knife from her bootstrap at the first sign of swift-boaters.
A new New York Times/CBS poll shows Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire find both Barack Obama and John Edwards to be more genuine than Hillary Clinton, and therefore less prepared to be president.
Clinton has a lead in both states, although the margin in Iowa is tiny, making for a virtual dead heat between the three leading Democratic contenders.
The results suggest Democrats are having another John Kerry moment in trying to decide whether to settle on the electable rather than the inspiring. Clinton's antisocial campaign style has given her the edge on this front, as her overcareful ways give her a dangerous appearance - she's the most likely to pull a knife from her bootstrap at the first sign of swift-boaters.
According to the poll "80 percent of Iowa voters described (Clinton) as prepared to be president, compared with 68 percent who said that of Mr. Edwards and just 42 percent who said that of Mr. Obama." That's a tall hill to climb for O and E.
Camille Paglia over at Salon.com sees weakness in Clinton's strategy, but her argument seems to require a fundamental shift in media coverage to gain traction.
Republicans, meantime, are doing their own vacillating between idealism and pragmatism. Rudy Giuliani, generally seen as the stronger general-election candidate, leads in New Hampshire. Mitt Romney, seen as more of the conservative's conservative, leads in Iowa. But Romney has to fend off an ascendant Mike Huckabee, who has the twin advantage of being a true conservative and not Mormon.
Republicans, meantime, are doing their own vacillating between idealism and pragmatism. Rudy Giuliani, generally seen as the stronger general-election candidate, leads in New Hampshire. Mitt Romney, seen as more of the conservative's conservative, leads in Iowa. But Romney has to fend off an ascendant Mike Huckabee, who has the twin advantage of being a true conservative and not Mormon.
All in all, the poll suggests the audacity of caution will once again win the day.
Shocking
I'm sure the seaweed fabric scandal has left many quacking in their Tree stance, but I'm not sure what aspect of this story shocks me most.
Is it the fact that a manufacturer lied about incorporating seaweed into the fabric of its yoga clothes? The fact that anyone believes seaweed clothes contain "marine amino acids, minerals and vitamins (that will seep) into the skin upon contact with moisture?” The fact that the New York Times paid to test the clothes to verify the presence of marine amino acids and vitamins? The fact that the NY Times made that decision after talking to an investor who would benefit from bad results? The fact that the story jumps to a second page? The fact that the story is in the Top 10 most e-mailed for the second day in a row?
I'm sure the seaweed fabric scandal has left many quacking in their Tree stance, but I'm not sure what aspect of this story shocks me most.
Is it the fact that a manufacturer lied about incorporating seaweed into the fabric of its yoga clothes? The fact that anyone believes seaweed clothes contain "marine amino acids, minerals and vitamins (that will seep) into the skin upon contact with moisture?” The fact that the New York Times paid to test the clothes to verify the presence of marine amino acids and vitamins? The fact that the NY Times made that decision after talking to an investor who would benefit from bad results? The fact that the story jumps to a second page? The fact that the story is in the Top 10 most e-mailed for the second day in a row?
So I immediately wanted to learn more and came upon company owner David "Chip" Wilson's musings. Here he talks about the pill, Power Women, the Super Girl market, and why he founded the Canadian-based Lululemon: "Ultimately, lululemon was formed because female education levels, breast cancer, yoga/athletics and the desire to dress feminine came together all at one time."
Indeed, the perfect storm.
Nov 13, 2007
If you are looking for page hits...
Since the new news is about reaching audience segments, perhaps it is time for news enterprises to go a little green. Get on the motherfucking tip!
Since the new news is about reaching audience segments, perhaps it is time for news enterprises to go a little green. Get on the motherfucking tip!
David Brooks has a crush
Taking the 5th spot in today's list of most e-mailed stories (as of...now) comes this generous piece from New York Times columnist David Brooks about the lagging but not forlorn fortunes of presidential candidate John McCain.
Old school is cool again: Eight years ago, it was fashionable for us media types to wax rapturously about McCain. That vogue has passed, but I’m afraid my views are unchanged.
Torture builds character: Prison in Vietnam gave him self-respect and a cause greater than himself, but it didn’t diminish his dynamism.
The smooth rebel: The years and the Senate have smoothed some of his rebelliousness, but he still fights a daily battle against the soul-destroying forms of modern politics.
Cursed by honesty: There have been occasions when McCain compromised his principles for political gain, but he was so bad at it that it always backfired.
He who controls the narrative controls the world
A common theme found in news-reform propaganda is the story of the stale, dyed-in-the-ink editor or reporter who stands in the way of inevitable change. This asshole just can't get it through his thick skull that the Internet is here to stay, and so he resorts to all manner of foot-dragging, haggling and whining to keep this new reality from seeping in and destroying the old one.
How frustrating, right? Here we are trying to make progress and this Luddite is blocking our way forward.
Here's a version from L. John Haile, former Orlando Sentinel editor, found in a recent NAA posting. In his story, these bad actors have been vanquished and progress is finally at hand:
"In the newsrooms of all but the smallest papers of five to seven years from now, the editors who couldn’t quite let go have themselves been let go. And there are no jobs for journalists who continue to say they 'just don’t get it.'
"Newsrooms have finally abandoned that silliness of separating old and new media, with publishers and editors having recognized that their job wasn’t to introduce new products but rather to change the very business and the culture that drives that business."
Yeah, fuck those obstructionists! Throw them over the side where they will be eaten by the strong.
But there's another narrative worth considering. In this one, there are a few old codgers (and young ones) unwilling to change and plenty of old codgers (and young ones) who are. There are no convenient scapegoats for bad management decisions or dwindling ad revenue, no positive spin for why so many people were fired, no masking profit motives as idealism.
In this narrative, companies want to make more money and people get hurt in the process. Fear and avarice play a leading role, suckling incompetence and suffocating uncertainty. The "new" the "change" the "future" are seen for what they are: cloudy concepts used to shame anyone standing in the way of profit and that dissipate upon even the most cursory inspection.
In this narrative, multiple formats and platforms are called what they really are: entertainment designed to take advantage of a public hungry for easy distractions while at work and too impatient to digest thoughtful prose.
It acknowledges that "innovation" means investing in non-news operations to beef up bottom lines and that "citizen journalism," community blogging and hyperlocal are about building a loyal audience that will provide the mouse clicks needed to profit from new forms of advertising.
It knows that "imagining the future" means tearing down the walls that insulate newsrooms from monetary considerations when writing or covering a story.
It is aware that the first narrative is a virus designed to instill loathing for anyone who pushes back.
A common theme found in news-reform propaganda is the story of the stale, dyed-in-the-ink editor or reporter who stands in the way of inevitable change. This asshole just can't get it through his thick skull that the Internet is here to stay, and so he resorts to all manner of foot-dragging, haggling and whining to keep this new reality from seeping in and destroying the old one.
How frustrating, right? Here we are trying to make progress and this Luddite is blocking our way forward.
Here's a version from L. John Haile, former Orlando Sentinel editor, found in a recent NAA posting. In his story, these bad actors have been vanquished and progress is finally at hand:
"In the newsrooms of all but the smallest papers of five to seven years from now, the editors who couldn’t quite let go have themselves been let go. And there are no jobs for journalists who continue to say they 'just don’t get it.'
"Newsrooms have finally abandoned that silliness of separating old and new media, with publishers and editors having recognized that their job wasn’t to introduce new products but rather to change the very business and the culture that drives that business."
Yeah, fuck those obstructionists! Throw them over the side where they will be eaten by the strong.
But there's another narrative worth considering. In this one, there are a few old codgers (and young ones) unwilling to change and plenty of old codgers (and young ones) who are. There are no convenient scapegoats for bad management decisions or dwindling ad revenue, no positive spin for why so many people were fired, no masking profit motives as idealism.
In this narrative, companies want to make more money and people get hurt in the process. Fear and avarice play a leading role, suckling incompetence and suffocating uncertainty. The "new" the "change" the "future" are seen for what they are: cloudy concepts used to shame anyone standing in the way of profit and that dissipate upon even the most cursory inspection.
In this narrative, multiple formats and platforms are called what they really are: entertainment designed to take advantage of a public hungry for easy distractions while at work and too impatient to digest thoughtful prose.
It acknowledges that "innovation" means investing in non-news operations to beef up bottom lines and that "citizen journalism," community blogging and hyperlocal are about building a loyal audience that will provide the mouse clicks needed to profit from new forms of advertising.
It knows that "imagining the future" means tearing down the walls that insulate newsrooms from monetary considerations when writing or covering a story.
It is aware that the first narrative is a virus designed to instill loathing for anyone who pushes back.
More from Jan Schaffer, leading thinker
As a leading thinker in the journalism reform movement, based at the University of Maryland, a leading reform j-school, Schaffer has lots of thoughts. Here's one, which she shared on the Newspaper Association of America blog "Imagining the Future of Journalism":
"Ultimately, the marketplace will decide what is news. News will be whatever adds value in a noisy information landscape, whatever helps people get their jobs done, whatever imparts wisdom, and whatever elicits gratitude. To figure this out you also need some new players in your info-structure."
Now, I don't want to quibble, as I always try to avoid argument when I can, but I can think of many things in this world that add value in a noisy information landscape (search engines, peer reviews, the off button), helps people get their jobs done (computer, stapler, coffee), impart wisdom (grandpa, fortune cookies, Dr. Phil), and elicit gratitude (compliments, yearly bonus, gifts) that aren't news.
At the risk of being labeled a "can don't-er," the marketplace doesn't do things like decide what is news. It decides what will sell and for what kind of profit. Blurring this line is the kind of dishonesty good journalists used to call "bullshit" when it came from leading thinkers and reformists in government.
Frankly, all of this reformist talk sounds desperate. Like rationalizing why one needs to lower one's standards to get laid. It's not that I have a bad self-image or self-destructive streak, it's that I don't wear slutty enough clothes or go to enough singles bars.
I don't imagine a future where journalists have to respond to the whims of the marketplace in deciding how to do their jobs. That seems somehow irresponsible to me. But maybe I lack leading-thinker qualities.
Decide for yourself by reading Schaffer's entire post here.
The right way to treat your boss
The pros at Stars and Stripes have asked (as this memo from Poynter shows) for the acting publisher's head after he refused to turn over documents related to some fucked up partnership with a PR firm.
Here's an excerpt: "I want to inform you that the overseas bureau chiefs Joe, Marni, Tom Skeen, Tim Flack, Chris Carlson and I have called for Max Lederer to step down as acting publisher ... In the letters, we explained that by failing to release the documents, he is making every reporter's job that much harder. If we can't get our own people to release public documents, why should we expect the military to cooperate?"
Semper fi.
The pros at Stars and Stripes have asked (as this memo from Poynter shows) for the acting publisher's head after he refused to turn over documents related to some fucked up partnership with a PR firm.
Here's an excerpt: "I want to inform you that the overseas bureau chiefs Joe, Marni, Tom Skeen, Tim Flack, Chris Carlson and I have called for Max Lederer to step down as acting publisher ... In the letters, we explained that by failing to release the documents, he is making every reporter's job that much harder. If we can't get our own people to release public documents, why should we expect the military to cooperate?"
Semper fi.
Nov 12, 2007
Who needs Pulitzers when you have multiple platforms?
Marcus Stern's decision to step down from the imploding Copley News Service should give us pause. If doing great journalistic work cannot protect us from the whims of the marketplace (in that the marketplace doesn't seem to respond) then what hope is there for newspapers (sorry, news enterprises)?
Read with despair, but stay positive!
Marcus Stern's decision to step down from the imploding Copley News Service should give us pause. If doing great journalistic work cannot protect us from the whims of the marketplace (in that the marketplace doesn't seem to respond) then what hope is there for newspapers (sorry, news enterprises)?
Read with despair, but stay positive!
Lifting the fog
These are tough times for newsrooms. Cuts, consolidation and convergence have made off with vital personnel and have crushed spirits. The way ahead is difficult, the road obscured by chatter, jargon and uncertainty.
Thankfully, clarity is at hand. Click here to find the confidence to go on. It is a new blog about shortcuts to the future, and with a pithy name like "Imagining the Future of Newspapers," you know it's going to be inspiring.
Indeed, read through and you will come across inspiring lines like this: Newspapers need to be more aggressive in embracing change. As one writer eloquently phrased it: "Business is decelerating faster than our efforts to transform the organization. Newspapers must stem declines and ramp up pace of change."
The very definition of eloquence! And it has clarity in spades. Embrace change and stem the decline, right? A simple, straightforward plan of attack. Now get to it!
Here's more: Success will be driven by our ability to create bolder, more differentiated content (including a laser focus on local) delivered over multiple media formats for specific audience segments. (And, subsequently, better connecting advertisers with the audience they desire.)
Now, that may sound a lot like, "Do something other than news and you'll sell more advertising," but that's too cynical a take. One simply cannot argue with the fact that differentiated content delivered over multiple formats is the best way to target specific audience segments.
Ethics (i.e., the old way of thinking) are bound to get in the way. Another writer has some clear-headed advice on how to get around them (start up the BBQ!): Look around, find your sacred cows and slaughter them, because if you don’t, someone else will – and your company with them.
Now that the sacred cows have been slaughtered, the act of imagining the future becomes much easier to do. Pulitzer-prize winning former business editor Jan Schaffer takes it from there: News organizations need to construct the hub that will enable ordinary people with passions and expertise to commit acts of news and information.
Splendid. But what exactly is news now that we've slaughtered our sacred definitions? Schaffer has our answer: Heading into the future, news becomes less of a concrete deliverable – a story or package of stories occupying some form of real estate online or on the printed page – and it becomes more of an ongoing process of imparting and learning about information. The process of involvement in the news, whether it’s an interactive consumption or a proactive creation, becomes as important as the output.
Chew on that proactively and we'll discuss the output shortly.
These are tough times for newsrooms. Cuts, consolidation and convergence have made off with vital personnel and have crushed spirits. The way ahead is difficult, the road obscured by chatter, jargon and uncertainty.
Thankfully, clarity is at hand. Click here to find the confidence to go on. It is a new blog about shortcuts to the future, and with a pithy name like "Imagining the Future of Newspapers," you know it's going to be inspiring.
Indeed, read through and you will come across inspiring lines like this: Newspapers need to be more aggressive in embracing change. As one writer eloquently phrased it: "Business is decelerating faster than our efforts to transform the organization. Newspapers must stem declines and ramp up pace of change."
The very definition of eloquence! And it has clarity in spades. Embrace change and stem the decline, right? A simple, straightforward plan of attack. Now get to it!
Here's more: Success will be driven by our ability to create bolder, more differentiated content (including a laser focus on local) delivered over multiple media formats for specific audience segments. (And, subsequently, better connecting advertisers with the audience they desire.)
Now, that may sound a lot like, "Do something other than news and you'll sell more advertising," but that's too cynical a take. One simply cannot argue with the fact that differentiated content delivered over multiple formats is the best way to target specific audience segments.
Ethics (i.e., the old way of thinking) are bound to get in the way. Another writer has some clear-headed advice on how to get around them (start up the BBQ!): Look around, find your sacred cows and slaughter them, because if you don’t, someone else will – and your company with them.
Now that the sacred cows have been slaughtered, the act of imagining the future becomes much easier to do. Pulitzer-prize winning former business editor Jan Schaffer takes it from there: News organizations need to construct the hub that will enable ordinary people with passions and expertise to commit acts of news and information.
Splendid. But what exactly is news now that we've slaughtered our sacred definitions? Schaffer has our answer: Heading into the future, news becomes less of a concrete deliverable – a story or package of stories occupying some form of real estate online or on the printed page – and it becomes more of an ongoing process of imparting and learning about information. The process of involvement in the news, whether it’s an interactive consumption or a proactive creation, becomes as important as the output.
Chew on that proactively and we'll discuss the output shortly.
The long arm of the tax collector
You have to read pretty far into this article, published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, to get to the good part, so let me save you the time:
In the May 2006 e-mail, Chief Bob Garcia said he got an inquiry from city hall asking about the type of clientele attending the club and the types of problems being encountered there. He asked for an e-mail from evening watch commanders on the club's crowd.
"The reason for the inquiry," he wrote, "is that the city may consider buying the property `Club D' sits on as part of its ongoing redevelopment."
That's police Chief Bob Garcia. And that's the city of Azusa relying on its police force to make the case for blight. Perhaps this info should have run higher.
You have to read pretty far into this article, published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, to get to the good part, so let me save you the time:
In the May 2006 e-mail, Chief Bob Garcia said he got an inquiry from city hall asking about the type of clientele attending the club and the types of problems being encountered there. He asked for an e-mail from evening watch commanders on the club's crowd.
"The reason for the inquiry," he wrote, "is that the city may consider buying the property `Club D' sits on as part of its ongoing redevelopment."
That's police Chief Bob Garcia. And that's the city of Azusa relying on its police force to make the case for blight. Perhaps this info should have run higher.
The new journalism
Apparently readers are thirsting for stories about how the lives of journalists are changed by covering important events.
Or at least the Los Angeles Times thinks so. From today's paper:
Apparently readers are thirsting for stories about how the lives of journalists are changed by covering important events.
Or at least the Los Angeles Times thinks so. From today's paper:
- "I raised my camera and snapped a few shots.With the click of a shutter, Marine Lance Cpl. James Blake Miller, a country boy from Kentucky, became an emblem of the war in Iraq. The resulting image would change two lives -- his and mine."
You can read the story here.
On the whole, I think most first person journalism should be avoided. It is usually self-indulgent and misguided, and it undermines the whole enterprise by inviting conclusion and opinion into a medium that should be dominated by fact and observation.
More than that, once a reporter shifts his focus from looking out at something to looking inward, he becomes invested in it. The instinct that drives him to shine a light on events regardless of what might be revealed is suppressed by a new desire to protect his own ego and promote his own version of things.
In other cases, I have seen the paper treat objectivity like false modesty, something that must be boldly brushed aside to reveal the true myth-making potential of journalism:
- "Mohammed Ashtari became an emblem of the decision by thousands of San Diego County residents to ignore evacuation orders when he was featured in a Times article Tuesday."
Huzzah! Proof of relevance!
One can debate the imperfection of objective journalism, but let's not go overboard here and start buying our own press. Let's also avoid the related temptation to personalize the tragedies we cover, as the Times does here and here.
A newspaper should be an instrument through which a reader can see a broader world than his own; a world shown as it is, not as it wants to be seen. This kind of journalism highlights an insular world, bounded by the tastes and impressions of a few people, obscured by personal experience and limited by opinion.
American exports
Remember when the news first broke that an 18-year-old Finnish boy had killed eight people in a high school shooting before turning the gun on himself? And you thought, "Wow, how tragic" and then you thought, "Really? In Finland?" and then you thought, "See, we Americans aren't the only ones who are fucked up in this world!"?
Remember when the news first broke that an 18-year-old Finnish boy had killed eight people in a high school shooting before turning the gun on himself? And you thought, "Wow, how tragic" and then you thought, "Really? In Finland?" and then you thought, "See, we Americans aren't the only ones who are fucked up in this world!"?
Now comes this revelation (as reported by the AP in today's Los Angeles Times):
- PHILADELPHIA -- A teenager who admitted plotting a school attack near Philadelphia had chatted online about the Columbine massacre with a teenage outcast who killed eight people and himself in a high school shooting in Finland, the Pennsylvania boy's attorney said today.
The full story is here.
You are what you watch
Well, maybe it's not that simple, but it's not much more complicated either according to this poll, which bears out most of our basic prejudices.
Conservatives prefer Fox, Rush Limbaugh and NASCAR and dislike comedy; liberals prefer documentaries, the Daily Show, world music and a secular society; and the mushy middle, the moderates, have a taste for daytime television, self-helps books and Oprah.
More interesting to me is the demographic data used to separate the blues from the reds, found here. The fact that over 95% of conservatives, liberals and moderates said they were "very likely" to vote in a national election tells me the results are skewed by a faulty self-perception.
One can imagine a self-described liberal touting his habit of visiting museums, even though he hasn't been in years. Or a conservative railing against the crudeness of certain television, even though she faithfully TiVos Family Guy and Drawn Together.
But this is a blog, so we won't get bogged down in such nuance.
Among the least surprising findings about our entertainment habits:
Well, maybe it's not that simple, but it's not much more complicated either according to this poll, which bears out most of our basic prejudices.
Conservatives prefer Fox, Rush Limbaugh and NASCAR and dislike comedy; liberals prefer documentaries, the Daily Show, world music and a secular society; and the mushy middle, the moderates, have a taste for daytime television, self-helps books and Oprah.
More interesting to me is the demographic data used to separate the blues from the reds, found here. The fact that over 95% of conservatives, liberals and moderates said they were "very likely" to vote in a national election tells me the results are skewed by a faulty self-perception.
One can imagine a self-described liberal touting his habit of visiting museums, even though he hasn't been in years. Or a conservative railing against the crudeness of certain television, even though she faithfully TiVos Family Guy and Drawn Together.
But this is a blog, so we won't get bogged down in such nuance.
Among the least surprising findings about our entertainment habits:
- Conservatives were more likely to watch only two channels out of the 24 highest-rated networks: Fox and Fox News.
- Over 90% of conservatives said they never enjoy reggae, electronic music or Latin music. Over 95% said they never enjoy world music and punk music.
- Cerebral material like documentaries and arts and educational programming all appeal more to liberals, who are 57% female.
More surprising, or at least unexpected:
- "House": one of the very successful TV shows with almost an equal number of adherents across the political spectrum.
- "The Da Vinci Code": in almost every demographic category, except for the ultra-religious, this was the movie seen by the most people.
- News: over 70% of each political group said they watch the news everyday
One other interesting tidbit: conservatives seem to believe that TV, movies and books usually contain a political message meant to influence or challenge their beliefs, and think a person's viewing/reading habits correlate with their politics (Nearly two in three conservatives think it is possible to predict a person’s politics when they know the person’s entertainment preferences, while 55% of liberals and 50% of moderates agree.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
