do unto others
August 7, 2009 Comments Off
quote of the day
July 11, 2009 2 Comments
saving newspapers – off the top of my head edition
Freddie and Will have both written about the impending doom of the newspapers. I’m not sure I share their skepticism – after all, so long as there is a demand for news, there will be a supply for that demand. The delivery may change, but the news itself won’t go away. It may grow more limited with a more limited demand. Or we may all be surprised and as the transition away from dead tree news takes place, we may see the news organizations coming up with better ideas to increase revenues online or new models with which to distribute printed papers.
It’s not that I’m eternally optimistic, it’s just that I do believe that where there’s a desire for a product, said product usually shows up. And I don’t see the demand for news changing so much as I see a change in demand for how that news is delivered. It’s in the delivery that old media is off their game. People still want the product.
So off the top of my head, here are some ideas that newspapers could try, and some predictions that I think aren’t really so gloomy as my brothers here at the League are counting on: [Read more →]
July 1, 2009 8 Comments
a bad idea
July 1, 2009 1 Comment
on the fly vs fly on the wall
Scott is right, of course. The blogging community functions more like a sawed off shotgun than one of these, even when we’re dealing with topics that are undoubtedly long range. Some pieces might hit the mark, but a lot of them won’t. Nevertheless, there is something good and valuable to this sort of approach that I think Scott touches on a bit, but largely leaves out of his post. [Read more →]
June 16, 2009 1 Comment
don’t just do something, sit there
Props on the title go to Eunomia commenter Grumpy Old Man who was commenting on the second of two very strong posts from Daniel Larison regarding the Iranian riots. Larison worries that too much enthusiasm over these elections will invariably lead to our doing something stupid – some statement or symbolic gesture, such as Obama wearing a green tie (the color of political Islam) out of solidarity and thereby further propagating the myth that he is in fact a Muslim. Obama’s a sharp guy, though. I doubt he’d do anything quite so silly, though he really ought to wear a green tie next St. Patrick’s Day. In any case, as Larison notes:
One of the great problems with a foreign policy that takes global “leadership” as a given is that it seems to compel the U.S. government to have an official view on every event and crisis around the world. The idea that there are events that have nothing to do with us, and which we have no business concerning ourselves with, is so alien to our policymakers that I am fairly sure that it never occurs to them. Certainly, if it ever did, they would dismiss it immediately as unacceptable “inaction” in a “time of crisis.” Discretion sometimes truly is the better part of valor.
Now, I admit to having been very caught up in these elections and the subsequent protests, riots, and so forth. I felt that a less hostile Iranian regime would put a damper on all this talk of invasion – both in Israel and in the United States. Then, too, despite my generally non-interventionist stance, I nonetheless feel a great deal of empathy for the people in other parts of the world who feel powerless in their political process. I sympathize with a populace who cares enough to go to these lengths after what they perceive to be a stolen election. Once upon a time Americans had this passion, but we’ve lost it along the way.
My enthusiasm, I think, was mainly one of contrasts. I was enthralled with the flood of information – however scattered and incomplete it may have been – that came in via youtube, twitter and the blogs. The silence on mainstream outlets was deafening. The lack of interest in so many of my fellow citizens was startling. Then again, I remember talking to a young lady just before elections and asking her who she was voting for and she shrugged her shoulders and said she wasn’t interested in politics. So apathy over Iranian elections is hardly surprising. [Read more →]
June 16, 2009 10 Comments
Stewart v. McArdle
Jon Stewart also shapes peoples’ decisions. Video is a medium with powerful claims to reality–people tend to think that if they saw it, it must be true. This makes it uniquely good at manipulating its audience with skillful editing. I’m very sympathetic to Stewart’s deep critique of financial shows, but I don’t think the way to go about it was to string together a bunch of very misleading clips. Nor to imply that Santelli, who has been vocally against all bailouts from the beginning, was merely frothing on the forclosure program because ordinary taxpayers were finally getting a taste of federal largesse. But Stewart carefully claims he’s just an entertainer, so he has no obligation to hew to journalistic standards on things like quoting out of context.
Deep critique? “Satire” is more like it. Stewart doesn’t do deep critiques. That’s why he uses cheap shots and lots of video editing. He’s making a satirical point in a twenty minute tv spot on a late night cable comedy channel. He doesn’t have time for deep critiques. When you want to make a point, and you want to be funny, you don’t have much you can accomplish in the way of depth. Poignancy must be done via wit, not “deep critique.”
This last line from Megan’s post is baffling. Maybe somebody could help explain it to me:
Financial journalism isn’t, as Stewart argues to Cramer over and over, entertainment. So how come Stewart acted as if it was?
I just fail utterly to see what she means by this. Stewart used his pedestal as an entertainer and social critic – not journalist mind you – to take a swing at financial reporting and the lack of integrity of financial journalists, anchors, and the shows in general. He was making a very specific point: these shows should be reporting. Not entertaining. The Daily Show exists to entertain. It doesn’t report because it is fake news. Any reporting it does is by its very nature, fake. It does do satire, which is really the entire point of fake news to begin with. And satire is entertainment, sure, but it’s also a very effective critical medium.
March 13, 2009 25 Comments
