Usually, it’s easy enough to bash MSNBC for it’s hosting of the views of Mr. Invisible Grand Wizard Hood himself, Pat Buchanan, but now, the shit seeps deeper. By now you may have seen this piece, Glenn Greenwald’s haymaker barrage on MSNBC, specifically with regard to GE’s control over Countdown’s one sided feud with The Bill-O The Clown Show & last week’s three-time guest host Richard Wolffe, which just about murders the network in a way we havn’t seen to date. Sidebar: will this dent the number of times we’ll see Salon.com honcho Joan Walsh doing spots on Countdown? It’s curious how she did a spot, probably knowing what we all know now, on a Wolffe-hosted broadcast of Countdown.
Did O’Reilly ever, and I’m quoting the NYT article that Greenwald cites, lead “an exceptional campaign against General Electric, the parent company of MSNBC.”? It felt like BillO was just throwing slop that never stuck?
Is it just me or is Olbermann’s response to the NYT, “I am party to no deal,” so definitive and vague that he’s going to have to bring it harder on Monday?
In late 2007, Mr. O’Reilly had a young producer, Jesse Watters, ambush Mr. Immelt and ask about G.E.’s business in Iran, which is legal, and which includes sales of energy and medical technology. G.E. says it no longer does business in Iran.
Mr. O’Reilly continued to pour pressure on its corporate leaders, even saying on one program last year that “If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt.” The resulting e-mail to G.E. from Mr. O’Reilly’s viewers was scathing.
One thing I give KO kudos for is that I don’t think he ever went to bat for G.E./Immelt. Please, correct me with evidence if it’s there. Also, I don’t know how O’Reilly can say that about G.E. when he defended Bush, he of no-bid contracts, for so long, and hey, what about those electrocutions from KBR installed showers?
But the completely noncoincidental timing of when KO retired the Bill O’Reilly fight is amazing, and here are the choice grafs from Greenwald:
Though Olbermann denies he was part of any deal, the NYT says that there has been virtually no criticism of Fox by Olbermman, or MSNBC by O’Reilly, since June 1 when the deal took effect. That’s mostly but not entirely true. On June 17, after President Obama accused Fox News of fomenting hostility towards his agenda, and Fox responded by saying that the “other networks” were pure pro-Obama outlets, Olbermann did voice fairly stinging criticisms of Fox as “more of a political entity than is the Republican National Committee right now, only it’s fraudulently disguised as some sort of news organization.”
But a review of all of Olbermann’s post-June 1 shows does reveal that he has not ever criticized (or even mentioned) Bill O’Reilly since then and barely ever mentions Fox News any longer. And on June 1 — the last time Olbermann mentioned O’Reilly — Olbermann claimed at the end of his broadcast that he would cease referring to O’Reilly in the future because ignoring him (and “quarantining” Fox) would supposedly help get O’Reilly off the air (“So as of this show‘s end, I will retire the name, the photograph, and the caricature”).
I’m gonna need Olbermann to bring some defense this week if I’m gonna keep downloading the podcast, or try and be his Devil’s Advocate again. What’s funnier though is that Charlie Rose cared about trying to squash the Countdown/Factor beef, and was the Obama to the Gates/Crowley that was Immelt/Murdoch.
After the Liberal Hero’s Welcome Rachel Maddow got on Friday’s Real Time, is she Greenwald’s next target, now that he’s taken down Chuck Todd and Countdown? Glenn seems to have the scope trained on NBC, so it’s either her or the easy targets like Tweetie or Ed. Then again, you’d have to find substantive fault with Maddow’s coverage to attack her.
So why do print magazines need to pour their journalistic creations onto the internet?
Because there are so many flaws in the production and distribution of analog journalism that they really ought to give digital a go. This is one of my longstanding and heretofore unblogged about pet peeves: magazine subscribers take it in the ear when it comes to quality service. Sure, the subscriber saves an unbelievable % off the cover price, but if you don’t subscribe or buy, (instead reading online if said magazine offers their content for free, ala The Fader’s free PDFs) the method that former subscribers tend to lean towards, you save 100% off the cover price.
Here’s an exact quote from the customer support from The Atlantic Monthly, for some context, they release their issues around the end of the 2nd to last week of the month prior to the one named on the cover of said issue:
Please allow until March 16, 2009 for delivery of your March 2009 issue.
So that means you are forced to give them three and a half weeks after the newsstand release until that issue can be considered late. Thanks to this fact, I canceled my trial subscription with The Atlantic.
In previous ages this may not have been an issue, but now we are in the aughts, aka the On Demand decade, where time + knowledge = money in a more off balance ratio than it’s ever been.
The Atlantic puts their articles online when their issues hit the newsstand, so there’s no point in subscribing aside from the fact that the magazine’s articles look better on the printed page than they do on my screen. Is this because of some culturally placed value inherent in something that was printed on paper with ink? Probably, but I also just find it easier to read on paper. That’s how I was educated for the majority of that section of my life, so that’s how my brain is wired.
Why does it take so long for The Atlantic to get their content to me? Postage costs have risen tremendously over the years, something anyone on The Nation of McSweeney’s e-mail lists know well already, so to cut costs, magazines have to ship at lower rates, is one of the major reasons.
But the Atlantic isn’t the only publication with suffering with getting their pulpy goodness into my hands or mailbox.
The Fader magazine at the jump of this post has a two-fer when it comes to demonstrating the problems of the subscription method, which is reccomended by only a few more doctors than the withdrawl method is.
1) The USPS loves to fray the edges of your mail. you know you’ve seen this before. also, this may happen because your landlord installed a half assed mail flap or tiny ass mailboxes.
For more evidence, see the below image, or imagine the torn up netflix envelopes I take out of my tiny ass mailbox, because I don’t have my mail come to my home anymore, it all comes to me at work.
2) The databases of these publishers can get fucked right quickly resulting in wasteful doubled-up subscriptions, as seen in the pic of the Fader issues, from when I used to have a subscript (hey they gave me free tix for Bonnaroo).
So with the risks of unbelievable wait times, damaged goods, and wasteful methods in convervationalistic (well, you’re subscribing to print already, so you’re not clean at all on this) times, it’s easy to see why people don’t want to be subscribers anymore.
So with subscriber numbers dipping despite the quality inherent in the product, the publishers decided to try and publish online. Also, some mags, the New Yorker, for example, lets their staff writers blog exclusive-to-the-net content, and Hendrik Hertzberg and Sasha Frere-Jones make great use of this function of their employer’s network of info/wit distribution.
So, Collin replied to my post with this comment. The line from the comment I found worth jumping off from towards my next thought about print journalism was:
My point of leading with Ben McGrath’s New Yorker piece wasn’t to discredit his story. Pieces like that have their place in journalism, and that specific story is full of worth (it’s in the New Yorker, ’nuff said). I just thought it was a great example of the traditional print voice that is seeping online.
And the thing is I wouldn’t say that it’s “seeping online” because there’s no real problem with the internet being used as a means for distributing material, at least as long as the material is worthwhile (no point in copying and pasting crap, which is why it’s great that Dane Cook started online, so his bullshit wasn’t redundant on top of being bullshit) presented in a visually palatable manner and there’s a decent business model behind it. And unlike many other publications that use the internet to mirror their physical product, The New Yorker has a pretty good handle on it’s online presence.
First of all, the New Yorker does it right because they let their writers have blogs on site, such as Sasha Frere-Jones, whose blog is definitely worth the click it will take you to get there … once you’re done here. I promise there’s a funny clip at the end of this, but it will disappear if you just scroll down right now.
But how does The New Yorker manage to get it right? Well, what I’ll assume are well-padded coiffures were able to put as many net application designers in all of their open-space offices on the same task, and this resulted in The New Yorker’s Digital Reader. The simplest way to browse is click on the arrows on the sides of the layouts, and then, as you’ll see below, after you click on the page, you zoom in to read the page.
Works like Parker’s article, the creme de la creme, are kept “behind the curtain,” as The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates put it, in the premium content section of The New Yorker’s site. This is done for one very good reason: good work doesn’t come free. Sure we’ve hit a point where admitting you still pay for music illicits stares akin to suggesting you just sharted, but journalism is a key ingredient in a well functioning and self questioning society, and we should be paying for it, hand over fist. Buy those NYTimes’ or whichever local paper is worth your money, (and no The USA Today does not count) not just when Obama’s won an election as I now endorse buying the Times (not that this was always the way I rolled over the W. Bush years) on any day of the week.
A few weeks ago, TIME had a cover story about the ways to save the newspaper. The problem the industry is currently facing is the fact that internet ad revenue for the news site industry is down. This trend results in oddities like the ginormous screen-estate that the Apple ad on the front page of the NYT that you may see when you go online to check your digital news, a stunt done wherein a high end company promotes itself to an audience that is presumably able to afford the product. The problem, though, is that these sites are all free, so their customers have no proof they’d actually be able to afford the ginormous 17″ Macbook Pro.
With The New Yorker’s digital reader, only available to those who will pay for it or actually subscribe to the publication, the people at Chevron know their product hawking won’t fall on broke ears. Admittedly, it would be great if all news would be available for free, but money doesn’t grow on KFC Famous Bowls yet, so we’ll have to pay for quality for the time being. And I have to reiterate that I think that as hard as it’s been for the journalistic commuity to get a grip on the net world, I think the New Yorker has a good start.
The author of the above TIME article then went on The Daily Show and Jon Stewart admitted that he shares the same crippling addiction to newspapers that I boldly revealed in my lede yesterday. Here’s the clip:
It might be a side-effect from growing up and treasuring the Sunday Times as manna from the heavens – or my years as a college newspaper writer – but I react the same way when I open up a newspaper (no, the Post doesn’t count, that’s a tabloid) that a junkie does when they get their hand on a dime-bag of cocaine. It’s a rush of blood to the heart. Watching the fifth season of The Wire wasn’t as bad as it could have been, because the newsroom is a growler full of kick ass for me. And for the most part, poseurs like Krauthammer and Kristol, Newspaper Men and Newspaper Women are a breed I’ll go to the mat for any day of the week.
My thanks to Collin for getting the gears turning again on a topic I’ve meant to get words out on. Box Score Beat is a damn good site, but I took issue with something he said, and thought a rebuttal was in the cards.
So I read his post, “New Journalism Demands a New Voice,” and got all animated in a rush because he seemed to be using Ben McGrath’s “Roid Warriors” article from the March 9th The New Yorker (which is about the investigations into the A-Roid story by The Daily News‘ sports investigatory team the I-Team) as a jumping off point about the failings in dumping the print writers onto the internet.
A friend pointed me to Ben McGrath’s recent article in The New Yorker titled “Roid Warriors” a few days ago. … I ran into the same friend the next day, and she asked me how I liked the piece. I replied that it was interesting enough, but I thought the writing was stereotypical print style and that it didn’t do much for me.
Where Collin sinks his teeth in is the proverbial red meat of the Sports Blogging Party: trite quasi-Lenoesque writing from old fartish hacks who never deserved their jobs when they wrote for print media anymore than they deserve their current jobs as online scribes. Here’s a quote that Colin found from Reilly:
Sure, times are rougher than Russian toilet paper. Your 401K is now a 101k. Donald Trump just laid off three blow-dryists. But because of it, you can see great sporting events for the price of a can of Spam Lite!
“RDRR,” Ricky, as the teacher at the sole private school in Springfield would say. But the problem with the piece was that the above quote was part of a longer ‘graf, and the only writing singled out as what you’ll see he refers to as “newspaperman writing,” despite the fact that the McGrath piece is where the story starts.
I’ll bold this ‘graf because I think it’s what we agree on. The above quote from Reilly doesn’t even deserve the place that it already has in print journalism, either. This is one of the flaws of large scale print journalism, to sell enough copies, publications have to cater to the lowest common denominator, as a result, the internet catered to the niche interests, and developed dedicated followings for those willing to lead.
Back to Reilly, though: any professor teaching journalism – print or online – would give that quote such a smattering of red ink you’d think the assignment was a Netflix envelope. Am I proud of that last line? Not entirely, but it gets the message across and it’s of substance, showing how drastically poor Reilly’s writing is, and somehow avoiding tried-and-abused never sacred heifers like Russian Poverty (not the best thing to be attacking in times of crisis), Donald Trump’s hair, and Spam, which Monty Python have had a humor copyright on for decades.
So how did Collin build a bridge from a New Yorker piece he was nonplussed by to
Don’t get me wrong, the reporting in the piece was solid, and the point of the article was surely to make the I-Team’s story the focus. But I’ve realized in the last few months that, due mostly to the proliferation of blogs I read, I have come to not only enjoy but also to expect a voice and an opinion in sports articles.
That seems to be the big difference between the net and the printed page: people get to be their own columnist online. Generalization, sure, but I believe there’s warrant to it. What I’m finding troublesome, though, is when writers I would classify as “print writers” convert to the online world and bring their newspaperman voice with them.
What do I mean by newspaperman voice? The type of writing that makes you think of trench coats, typewriters, kitschy headlines, and newspaper bundles tied with twine. The type of writing that smells faintly of ink and printing presses. The type of writing that has become so standard it can be called a “type of writing.”
Rick Reilly’s a perfect example.
While I’ve come to love Deadspin, have met Leitch and love their style of writing, it’s not a whole meal. There’s a thing about Yankees beat writer Tyler Kepner’s prose, for both the printed New York Times and the Bats blog that the NYT has Kepner writing for, that I actually find rather deserving of the ink and paper that is used in the printed version. He writes well, and he has a voice, but that doesn’t mean he has an opinion that comes through in any means other than the fact that you sense that he has a want for the team he covers to win, or at least give him stories worth a damn and more original than “Team Spends A Little Under The GDP of East Timor During Off Season To Try And Win The World Series.”
What I was trying to say is that we don’t always need columnists. Sometimes we need reporters. Actually, for the important stories, we really need reporters. We like columnists and the opinionated because we like to hear our ideas in someone else’s writing. The Times gets the difference between writing for the printed page and writing for the pixelated screen, as Kepner’s blog posts are musings and blips, appetizers compared to the lunches he serves up in ink and paper.
When I read that article from last week’s New Yorker, I realize that this is the kind of writing that keeps ink and paper companies in business(well, that and extremely pushy folks of the Schrute persuasion), because the printed publications, unlike most of the sports blogging world, can afford to send writers out to report, and find the reader more than they can find on their couch, you don’t see the following image in any MLB broadcast:
On a dry-erase board behind O’Keeffe’s head, Thompson had scrawled a quote from the newspaper baron Lord Northcliffe: “News is what somebody somewhere is trying to suppress. The rest is advertising.” There was an arrow connecting the word “somebody” to the name of the lawyer Rusty Hardin. His client Roger Clemens, the I-Team’s sources say, could be indicted for perjury sometime this spring.
This kind of stuff is why print still walks amongst the living, because it’s something that requires investigatory journalism, something that isn’t available to all bloggers, myself included, many of whom are unpaid and doing this to practice their own craft of writing in lieu of a paying gig, but most of us know that we’re not the standard.
What annoys me, and I don’t want to go Bissinger, but I’m worried about the future of the newspaper thanks to a dying attention span. Sure, the papers have a boatload of blame that they’re carrying on their fold, but they’re better than the alternative. I’ll hold onto the NYT, and I’ll be quite angry if it’s put out of business and those loud, boisterous hucksters at TMZ are still cranking shit out.
Good Journalism is what’s happening. It can happen in blogs, and does, but I’d rather have my name in ink than on screen nine times out of ten. This is why I’m going to try and write about a thousand words a night this week about where and why newspapers and magazines are chock full of FAIL and how I’d try and change the game up. Again, thanks to Collin for the inspiration.
I was pondering whether or not to blog on this, mostly because I don’t have film or links to show as source. But I was watching Olbermann talk about Rendition today. Sure it’s nothing we, and by we I mean smart fly-to-state America, didn’t already know about, but it’s a subject that needs more attention.
And what does Anderson Cooper, when I was channel surfing a couple nights ago, talk about(and yes, this is just one segment, but even bringing this non-news-story up is bullshit)? He had a fucking segment on the Jett* Travolta death and connections to scientology. This is the further continuing death of journalism we saw in the overwhelming coverage of the death of Jennifer Hudson’s brother, a story that had no place getting as much as it did in coverage.
This is why I still respect The New York Times, and why I prefer the MSNBC progressive talking heads power hours: the stories they cover that could be seen as fluff are relegated to the tail section of the show and treated as not-real-news. Further, they cover the funnier stories, not the manipulative bull that is celebrity-family-deaths.
* Jett, are you fucking kidding me? He named his son after the thing he likes the most? Way to insult your kid.
Ta-Nehisi Coates, writer, gamer, and the man at The Atlantic Monthly who isn’t Andrew Sullivan that me and mine link to, is gonna be at the Court Street Barnes & Noble tonight at 7pm for an event for the paperback edition of his title The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood. Read some of his blog, I’d be amazed if you don’t dig it. I don’t own the book yet, but I expect this to change tonight.