This day, 2008

Yesterday, on the front "page" of the NYTimes.com:

The Media Equation
Mourning Old Media’s Decline
by David Carr
NYTimes.com

I read and nodded grimly.

"...It’s been an especially rotten few days for people who type on deadline. On Tuesday, The Christian Science Monitor announced that, after a century, it would cease publishing a weekday paper. Time Inc., the Olympian home of Time magazine, Fortune, People and Sports Illustrated, announced that it was cutting 600 jobs and reorganizing its staff. And Gannett, the largest newspaper publisher in the country, compounded the grimness by announcing it was laying off 10 percent of its work force — up to 3,000 people.

Clearly, the sky is falling. The question now is how many people will be left to cover it."

This morning at work: whispered conservations in the hall, a barrage of staffer to staffer emails:

Men's Vogues And Portfolio Are First Conde Nast Victims

and this:

Fear Comes to 4 Times Square

and of course, this, from The Observer:

Empty Nast Syndrome: Conde Nast Cutting Five Percent of All Magazine Staffs

Now, I'm scared.

You see, I happen to work at 4 Times Square. And yes, though I am lucky enough to work at one it's most successful titles, I also happen to work on the web. Now, you may say, CNP is smart, they wouldn't cut online jobs... the internet is the future of media. You may say that and you may be right. I hope your right. Because these are scary times:

"The plan is not just a five percent overall spending reduction but rather two distinct five-percent cuts for each title, guaranteeing that titles cannot meet the goal without cutting staff.

First, each book will have to cut five percent of its payroll. They can do this through laying off staff or eliminating open and unfilled positions or a combination of the two.

Second, each book will have to cut five percent from its non-payroll budget lines: travel and expenses, meals, freelancers, etc."

Yikes.

This day, 2008

npr's on point hosts a conversation between atlantic writer andrew sullivan, dean of the columbia school of journalism nicholas lemann and the insanely accomplished daily beast-founder tina brown. and lemme tell ya, if you got any stake or interest in that world, definitely listen to this program. here's one refutable but interesting point that arises and hadn't occurred to me:

blogging, no matter how high the quality, rests on the infrastructure of print media, while also draining its pockets. it simultaneously feeds on, highlights and bankrupts traditional reporting. a parasitic relationship.

in other words, without paid journalists going out to find stories, we don't find out about conditions at guantanamo bay, for example. so, when print journalists lose their jobs because the newspapers who pay them can't compete with the internet, the news that bloggers just discuss is never even uncovered.

so... pay the best of the bloggers to investigate? give your journalists blogs? abandon the illusion of an unbiased media, bankroll watchdogs and let the strongest voices rise to the top? i'm no authority. by any means. but the system is capsizing on its own, whether the authorities like it or not, and somebody's gonna have to step in to create and enforce some standards. otherwise it's death to credibility and the whole operation's gonna eat itself, right? asdhgashgoi. i should probably stick to talking about art projects...

HEAR: On Point: Can Bloggers Save Journalism
READ: 'Why I Blog,' by Andrew Sullivan
READ: 'Mourning Old Media's Decline,' by David Carr

This day, 2008

Ah, Sarah Palin, you endless source of dismay and intrigue. You're the perfect symbol of everything that is wrong and right in this great nation of ours. Wrong, because there are so many people who agree with you. Right because there are so many people who don't.

How, oh how, do you do it?
Oh, right:

Palin Plays to Conservative Base in Florida Rallies

By JULIE BOSMAN

Published: October 7, 2008
NY Times

Let's take a look:

Standing before a sea of red T-shirts and homemade signs reading “No Communists!” and “Palin’s Pitbulls,” Ms. Palin on Tuesday nestled in to her Republican base.

“Our opponent voted to cut off funding for our troops,” Ms. Palin said, as she was interrupted by a deep-throated chorus of boos. “He did this even after saying that he wouldn’t do such a thing. And he said, too, that our troops in Afghanistan are just, quote, ‘air-raiding villages and killing civilians.’ I hope Americans know that is not what our brave men and women are doing in Afghanistan.”

“Treason!” one man in the crowd shouted angrily.

On a two-day, five-rally campaign swing through Florida, Ms. Palin was met by an enthusiastic response from audiences who devoured every word of her anti-Democratic pitch.

From Jacksonville in the northeast to Pensacola in the Panhandle, the fiery crowds gathered to jeer at any hint of liberalism, boo loudly at the mere mention of Senator Barack Obama’s name and heckle the traveling press corps (at a rally in Clearwater, one man hurled a racial epithet at a television cameraman).

Now, there are several things to be upset about here. I won't get into them all now, because that would just make me more mad then I already am. What I do want to talk about is this: How can someone incite people to use the word "treason" and at the same time incite them to hurl racial epithets, all in the name of patriotism?

What is this, 1963?

It's shocking, really. And beyond that, unacceptable.

I have to hand it to Julie Bosman. Her journalistic integrity remains in tact. How she was able to write a relatively unbiased, straight account of these rallies I'll never know. Obviously, I could not.

Especially when I consider this Op-Ed published the same day in the Opinion section of the NY Times:

Palin's Kind of Patriotism
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Friedman's article brings up some excellent points. Points so excellent that they make me very thankful that Op-Eds still exist. I am especially thankful for this:

...And there was one thing she said in the debate with Joe Biden that really sticks in my craw. It was when she turned to Biden and declared: “You said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America, which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that’s not patriotic.”
What an awful statement. Palin defended the government’s $700 billion rescue plan. She defended the surge in Iraq, where her own son is now serving. She defended sending more troops to Afghanistan. And yet, at the same time, she declared that Americans who pay their fair share of taxes to support all those government-led endeavors should not be considered patriotic.
I only wish she had been asked: “Governor Palin, if paying taxes is not considered patriotic in your neighborhood, who is going to pay for the body armor that will protect your son in Iraq? Who is going to pay for the bailout you endorsed? If it isn’t from tax revenues, there are only two ways to pay for those big projects — printing more money or borrowing more money. Do you think borrowing money from China is more patriotic than raising it in taxes from Americans?” That is not putting America first. That is selling America first.

Exactly.

Now partisan politics aside, let's just ask ourselves this: How did logic become so absent a reasoning tool and why are people so easily swayed by lies delivered with a wink?

And what exactly, Sarah Palin, is the right way to be "patriotic?"

Perhaps it's this:

Sarah Palin: Alaska First Separist Address

or maybe this:

Palin's Town Charged Women for Rape Exams

Oh, wait! I know, it's this:

Palin: Iraq War is 'God's Plan'


What's more American than God, after all?

This day, 2008

Now that the first debate between the two presidential hopefuls has come and gone, its our turn to debate: Who won?

The NY Times waisted no time publishing this story on Saturday:

The Next Day, A New Debate on Who Won
by Jim Rutenberg
Published September 27, 2008

"OXFORD, Miss. — The presidential campaigns roared out of here Saturday morning facing a task arguably as difficult, and as important, as the debate between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain itself: influencing the public perception of who won an encounter that produced no clear winner or loser."

Okay, so no clear winner/loser. But, Rutenberg's article does make it a point to mention this:

"The activity was part of an intensive battle to shape public perceptions in the vital closing weeks of a razor-thin race. And it reflected a common belief in presidential politics: That many viewers base their judgment not necessarily on debate performance but on what they read and see in the days afterward."

Ah, yes. We base our opinions not on what the candidates say at the debate, but rather what journalists say after the debate. Right. So let's look at what the journalists are saying...

NY Times Op-Ed columnist Maureen Dowd said this in her September 27th story Sound, but No Fury:

" McCain kept painting Obama as naïve, and dangerous, insisting that he “doesn’t quite understand or doesn’t get it.”

Obama should have responded “Senator, I understand perfectly, I’m just saying you’re wrong.”

On the surge, he could have said that McCain was the arsonist who wanted to be praised for the great job he’s doing putting out the fire he started.

When Obama took quiet umbrage at McCain’s attack about troop-funding, he could have pounded the lectern and said with real anger: “John, I am sick and tired of you suggesting that I would take funds away from our brave soldiers. I no more voted for that than you did when you voted against our funding proposals that would have imposed a timetable. And unlike you, I did not vote against funding increases for the troops that have come home with devastating physical and mental injuries.”

Obama did a poor job of getting under McCain’s skin. Or maybe McCain did an exceptional job of not letting Obama get under his skin. McCain nattered about earmarks and Obama ran out of gas.

We’re left waiting for a knockout debate. On to Palin-Biden."

Yes. We're definitely excited about Palin-Biden. Boy, are we ever. But let's not digress. Dowd clearly doesn't like McCain, but she seems pretty fed up with Obama's lack of anger. Does that mean McCain won? Does that mean Obama won, but only kinda? We need answers! Don't forget, we're depending on these journalist people to help us make up our minds.

Susan Estrich wrote a cute little article for a September 28th Fox News' Op-Ed, entitled No Solid Winner or Loser in First Presidential Debate:

"No one won, which also means no one lost.

Whichever side you’re on, you can find a way, without much trouble even, to claim victory in Friday night’s Presidential debate...

...This much is almost certain: if you were for Obama going in, you still are; if you were for McCain going in, you still are. This was one of those debates that gave everyone who is already decided plenty of reasons to feel that they decided right.

And if you were undecided Friday afternoon, you probably still are today."

Huh? I though you, Fox News lady, were going to tell us who won! You're supposed to be the very definition of biased media! Damn. Maybe the Huffington Post will tell us something.

Who Won the Debate? Reviews go to Obama, Nico Pitney September 26, 2008 11:41 PM:

Oh, thank goodness. Now we're getting somewhere. Pitney's article links to several other articles from reputable news sources, with blow-by-blow accounts of who won according to who. Finally, answers! Here's the Huffington Post round-up:

"- The New York Times editorial board writes that Obama won the discussion of the economy and that McCain seemed out of step with the current moment.

-Dan Balz, providing analysis for the Washington Post, says there was no knockout punch

-Meanwhile his colleague Tom Shales sums up the night as 'McCain too nasty, Obama too nice'

-The Wall Street Journal editorial board felt that McCain won on foreign policy while Obama won on the economy

-For the Los Angeles Times the debate was too close to call in terms of a winner

-Time's Joe Klein calls it a narrow victory for Obama"

Uh, okay. That was only marginally helpful. Most of those publications pretty much call it a draw...

I guess if you want a real opinion on who won, you should probably turn to the bloggers and read one of these:

Liberal Values: Obama Wins First Debate

Democrats.com: Obama Wins Debate #1

Talk Left: Why Obama Won the Debate

or if you feel differently:

Americans Against Obama: McCain Wins Debate

The Next Right: Why McCain Wins the Style Points

The New Conservatives: McCain Wins Debate Hands Down

Ah, America. Where no one ever has to be wrong.

This day, 2008

This story suits this blog's purposes so well that it's almost hard to believe it wasn't written just for me.

Amid Market Turmoil, Some Journalists Try to Tone Down Emotion

Published: September 21, 2008
nytimes.com

"For most of the country, the financial crises of the last few weeks have offered an education in economics. For journalists, they have been a lesson in semantics."

What a relief!
While watching CNN this past week, I've been struck by how many times I've seen and heard the phrase "economic crisis". It's made me worried. Not worried because I feel the tug of the "crisis" on my pockets, but worried because I imagine viewers all over the country throwing their arms up in panic, faces wrinkled in angst, tears in their eyes and panic in their steps as they run to the nearest bank and drain their accounts. Crisis! Financial crisis! They slam into each other as they run home, clutching their life savings to their chests, fists clenched and red, sweat on their brows.
Isn't that what happened right before the Great Depression? Confidence in the banking system faltered, everyone ran to get their money, the banking system collapsed. Crisis!

It's hard to know what to trust. The TV anchors with their best clenched smiles say we're on the brink of disaster. "We're headed for a depression!" NPR has financial experts on Morning Edition reciting numbers and quoting other experts in the attempt to qualm fears. "Yes," they say. "This is a recession. Yes, the economy is in it's worse shape since the depression. BUT, keep in mind, the GREAT depression was REALLY bad. This is nothing compared to that. Our unemployment rate holds steady at only 6%!"

“ ‘Crash,’ ‘panic,’ ‘pandemonium,’ ‘apocalypse,’ those are the words we’re staying away from,” said Robert H. Christie, a spokesman for The Wall Street Journal, now part of the News Corporation.

“We’re very careful not to throw words around like ‘meltdown’ and ‘free fall,’ ” said Ali Velshi, senior business correspondent at CNN. “If someone wants to say the markets are in free fall, we’ll discuss it first,” he said, and the outcome is most likely to be a change in wording.

Hmm. Really, guys? Wow. Then why did my sister call me up 15 minutes ago saying "Yeah, you know, it's so bad... It's another Great Depression!"
I mean, I know journalists are curbing their use of scary words, but she must have gotten that idea somewhere...

Maybe it was this article:
Financial disaster to dwarf Lehman looms as AIG takes a pounding

From Times Online

September 16, 2008

or this one:

Obama, McCain battle over financial crisis
Reuters,
Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:53pm EDT

Oh, hell. Who knows. It could've been any of these.