I noted back in January that I hadn't heard the idea of editorial and advertising presented as "church and state" until I went on a mini-course trip to Conde Nast in New York City. I found it an apt metaphor for the separation of powers within a given publication, especially since -- like real-world church and state -- the separation is often less absolute than intended.
Case in point: The Dallas Morning News's parent company A.H. Belo Corp. announced in a memo what it calls a "business/news integration" yesterday, meaning that some section editors will now be reporting to "general managers," a newly created position overseeing both advertising and editorial. In short, they basically dropped an atomic bomb on the invisible wall that has (at least since "objectivity" became the gold standard for the press) always separated the journalists from the ad salesmen. The end result is the journalistic equivalent of Iranian theocracy, complete with visible -- but powerless -- political leaders and shadowy religious figures making the real decisions behind closed doors.
Particularly interesting in this story -- for me -- is the fact that Belo Corp. also owns my hometown paper, The Providence Journal. Of course, some say they lost their editorial integrity a long time ago.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Is it me?
Or does this year's edition of Black Friday mark a turning point in the fake holiday's history? For the first time in my memory, I haven't heard or read anyone explain what Black Friday actually is this year. There's usually a story somewhere about "Retailers call it 'black friday' because they hope it will get them 'in the black' for the year." Even the fact that I feel compelled to capitalize "Black Friday," seems to indicate (to me) a sea change in the way we celebrate this time of year.
Now that it has a commonly accepted name, Black Friday is officially the important part of Thanksgiving weekend. Corporate America was never thrilled with Thanksgiving because it's a difficult holiday to profit from (unless you're in the turkey-stuffing-mashed potatoes business). With Black Friday, they finally have their Thanksgiving raison d'etre, and not one that's just confined to a department store in New York City.
While that's depressing to people who -- like me -- have a hard time dealing with such blatant abuses of capitalism, there's always buy nothing day (no capitals), and the fact that the actual essence of the holiday remains uncommercialized.
Now that it has a commonly accepted name, Black Friday is officially the important part of Thanksgiving weekend. Corporate America was never thrilled with Thanksgiving because it's a difficult holiday to profit from (unless you're in the turkey-stuffing-mashed potatoes business). With Black Friday, they finally have their Thanksgiving raison d'etre, and not one that's just confined to a department store in New York City.
While that's depressing to people who -- like me -- have a hard time dealing with such blatant abuses of capitalism, there's always buy nothing day (no capitals), and the fact that the actual essence of the holiday remains uncommercialized.
Monday, November 23, 2009
I was Going to Talk About the "War on Christmas," but then Chris Matthews Exploded
Just watch this video:
That's Matthews hammering Catholic Bishop of Providence Thomas Tobin on the perceived desire of the Church to start writing the law. Now, I don't like Chris Matthews. I find him pompous and overbearing. But I find Tobin to be pompous, overbearing, and downright mean, not to mention a Catholic fundamentalist who has far too much political influence in my state. So this was a welcome takedown from my perspective. The video is significantly longer than the clip I posted. You can watch the whole thing here.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
That's Matthews hammering Catholic Bishop of Providence Thomas Tobin on the perceived desire of the Church to start writing the law. Now, I don't like Chris Matthews. I find him pompous and overbearing. But I find Tobin to be pompous, overbearing, and downright mean, not to mention a Catholic fundamentalist who has far too much political influence in my state. So this was a welcome takedown from my perspective. The video is significantly longer than the clip I posted. You can watch the whole thing here.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Everything is Terrible!
Seriously, the world of things I feel inclined to blog about has gone absolutely insane today. The list of tags at the end of this post will be my longest ever. Without further ado:
1) I'm not going to talk about Sarah Palin's Newsweek Cover except to say that every outlet I've read calling it "sexist" is one I would consider "conservative," and every outlet I've read not calling it sexist is one I would consider "liberal." I suspect many people who read this (or know me) would consider me liberal, and I'm disappointed to say that I'm inclined to meet expectations here. Dubious editorial decision? Certainly. Sexist smear-campaign by the liberal media? Not so much. I guess I said more about that than I intended to.
2) On the topic of liberal vs. conservative interpretations of the news of the day, I remember reading, though I'm not sure where (perhaps in a comments page somewhere? Internet rule #1 should be "never read the comments"), an argument that amounted to a comparison between concluding that the Fort Hood tragedy was an act of terrorism and concluding that it was an example of instability caused by anxiety or PTSD. The line of thinking went like this: In the first few hours of reporting on the tragedy, it was just as legitimate to jump to the conclusion that Major Nidal Malik Hasan was an Islamic fundamentalist as it was to jump to the conclusion that he was mentally unstable (As it is so often in life, the truth may be somewhere in between?), and that the latter became the standard narrative because the media are politically correct liberals. But there's a big difference between jumping to the conclusion that a person of Palestinian descent is a terrorist, and jumping to the conclusion that a soldier is stressed out and mentally unstable. What's the difference you ask? The former is a racially based judgment. The latter, not so much. Claim the evils of political correctness all you want, but there is a higher burden of proof for racially charged claims. And there should be. Of course, the simple solution would have been to avoid speculation in the first place, but then what would cable news networks fill their airtime with?
3) The first of two stories from follow-up land: The AP apparently assigned 11 writers to its "Fact Check" of Sarah Palin's book. Which just adds to the hilarity that I previously reported experiencing upon reading the article.
4) Follow-up 2: Stephen Colbert nailed Rhode Island Governor and gay burials opponent Don Carcieri last night. I think I'll post the video here to break up this wall of text:
5) And finally, also from the world of Rhode Island news, comes the story of punishment for 9 players involved in the Woonsocket girls soccer fight, which made the national spotlight only days after the Elizabeth Lambert fiasco. I mention this mostly because it's the intersection of two of my favorite interests: Rhode Island and soccer. Also, it should be noted that I agree with the poster of the Lambert link (the third one above). This isn't a "besmirching the beautiful game" story, it's a "what the fuck were the referees thinking?" and "evidence for why the US lags behind the rest of the world in player development" story. But now my own special brand of dorkiness is showing.
By the way, the title of this post is also a hilarious Web site that often underscores how I feel about the media on days like this.
1) I'm not going to talk about Sarah Palin's Newsweek Cover except to say that every outlet I've read calling it "sexist" is one I would consider "conservative," and every outlet I've read not calling it sexist is one I would consider "liberal." I suspect many people who read this (or know me) would consider me liberal, and I'm disappointed to say that I'm inclined to meet expectations here. Dubious editorial decision? Certainly. Sexist smear-campaign by the liberal media? Not so much. I guess I said more about that than I intended to.
2) On the topic of liberal vs. conservative interpretations of the news of the day, I remember reading, though I'm not sure where (perhaps in a comments page somewhere? Internet rule #1 should be "never read the comments"), an argument that amounted to a comparison between concluding that the Fort Hood tragedy was an act of terrorism and concluding that it was an example of instability caused by anxiety or PTSD. The line of thinking went like this: In the first few hours of reporting on the tragedy, it was just as legitimate to jump to the conclusion that Major Nidal Malik Hasan was an Islamic fundamentalist as it was to jump to the conclusion that he was mentally unstable (As it is so often in life, the truth may be somewhere in between?), and that the latter became the standard narrative because the media are politically correct liberals. But there's a big difference between jumping to the conclusion that a person of Palestinian descent is a terrorist, and jumping to the conclusion that a soldier is stressed out and mentally unstable. What's the difference you ask? The former is a racially based judgment. The latter, not so much. Claim the evils of political correctness all you want, but there is a higher burden of proof for racially charged claims. And there should be. Of course, the simple solution would have been to avoid speculation in the first place, but then what would cable news networks fill their airtime with?
3) The first of two stories from follow-up land: The AP apparently assigned 11 writers to its "Fact Check" of Sarah Palin's book. Which just adds to the hilarity that I previously reported experiencing upon reading the article.
4) Follow-up 2: Stephen Colbert nailed Rhode Island Governor and gay burials opponent Don Carcieri last night. I think I'll post the video here to break up this wall of text:
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The Word - Skeletons in the Closet | ||||
| ||||
5) And finally, also from the world of Rhode Island news, comes the story of punishment for 9 players involved in the Woonsocket girls soccer fight, which made the national spotlight only days after the Elizabeth Lambert fiasco. I mention this mostly because it's the intersection of two of my favorite interests: Rhode Island and soccer. Also, it should be noted that I agree with the poster of the Lambert link (the third one above). This isn't a "besmirching the beautiful game" story, it's a "what the fuck were the referees thinking?" and "evidence for why the US lags behind the rest of the world in player development" story. But now my own special brand of dorkiness is showing.
By the way, the title of this post is also a hilarious Web site that often underscores how I feel about the media on days like this.
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Presidency is No Way to Treat an Animal
As first reported a long time ago by someone other than me, being President of the United States is the most difficult job in the world. Today was a particular apt reminder of that, as President Obama caught flack from at least three distinct groups who all think he sucks, but for very different reasons.
First, conservatives are furious with Obama's bow to Japanese Emperor Akihito, which is really just a retread of the backlash he faced after doing the same thing to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. No surprise here. If it wasn't this episode, it would be something else irking right-wing bloggers.
Second, and more surprisingly, Obama's "admission" during a town hall meeting with Chinese students that he had never used Twitter (despite the fact that his verified account has over 2.6 million followers) prompted criticism from the tech community, one that overlaps only superficially with Obama's usual critics.
At the same time, the Chinese government can't be too happy with the second part of his answer, which affirmed his belief that everyone should have unrestricted access to the Internet, including the Chinese.
I'm not saying the American president should be exempted from criticism. He certainly shouldn't. What I'm saying is more basic: No one deserves to have his every move scrutinized the way we scrutinize the President of the United States.
First, conservatives are furious with Obama's bow to Japanese Emperor Akihito, which is really just a retread of the backlash he faced after doing the same thing to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. No surprise here. If it wasn't this episode, it would be something else irking right-wing bloggers.
Second, and more surprisingly, Obama's "admission" during a town hall meeting with Chinese students that he had never used Twitter (despite the fact that his verified account has over 2.6 million followers) prompted criticism from the tech community, one that overlaps only superficially with Obama's usual critics.
At the same time, the Chinese government can't be too happy with the second part of his answer, which affirmed his belief that everyone should have unrestricted access to the Internet, including the Chinese.
I'm not saying the American president should be exempted from criticism. He certainly shouldn't. What I'm saying is more basic: No one deserves to have his every move scrutinized the way we scrutinize the President of the United States.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Is it me? Or is this article unintentionally hilarious?
The Associated Press Fact Checks Sarah Palin's Book
I say "hilarious" not because I think the facts of Palin's book don't bear checking (they certainly do), but rather because it just seems so long and serious and unprompted. As though the AP was shocked, SHOCKED, that the woman who coined the phrase "death panel" would be anything less than perfectly honest and factually accurate in her (pre-presidential candidacy?) autobiography.
I say "hilarious" not because I think the facts of Palin's book don't bear checking (they certainly do), but rather because it just seems so long and serious and unprompted. As though the AP was shocked, SHOCKED, that the woman who coined the phrase "death panel" would be anything less than perfectly honest and factually accurate in her (pre-presidential candidacy?) autobiography.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
So Glad it's Almost Over
The governor of my home state (RI), Don Carcieri, vetoed 22 bills today.
For a Rhode Island governor, vetoing bills is a largely ceremonial act, since the overwhelming Democratic majority in the legislature is almost always enough to override the vetoes. Given that context, it takes a special kind of gubernatorial dickishness to strike down the pieces of legislation that follow, knowing full well that your dickish gesture is almost entirely symbolic.
Among the vetoed:
- A bill that would have allowed the immediate release of inmates incarcerated for probation violations they were found not to have committed (in other words, the most logical course of action possible).
- A bill that would have required banks to notify homeowners of their impending foreclosure at least 45 days beforehand and suggest possible courses of action to avoid losing their homes. This bill was supported by some of the very banks it would have applied to.
- (My personal favorite) A bill that would have allowed the same-sex domestic partners of deceased Rhode Islanders to claim their remains and make funeral arrangements. For some context, read the governor's own veto statement, which offers several nit-picky excuses for the veto, and concludes with his (obvious) underlying reasoning: "This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage."
In other words, allowing a man to bury his gay lover would destroy the sanctity of marriage!
The bill passed the RI Assembly 63-1. I don't know who that "1" was, but he or she is probably Carcieri's only competition for Rhode Island Douche of the Century.
For a Rhode Island governor, vetoing bills is a largely ceremonial act, since the overwhelming Democratic majority in the legislature is almost always enough to override the vetoes. Given that context, it takes a special kind of gubernatorial dickishness to strike down the pieces of legislation that follow, knowing full well that your dickish gesture is almost entirely symbolic.
Among the vetoed:
- A bill that would have allowed the immediate release of inmates incarcerated for probation violations they were found not to have committed (in other words, the most logical course of action possible).
- A bill that would have required banks to notify homeowners of their impending foreclosure at least 45 days beforehand and suggest possible courses of action to avoid losing their homes. This bill was supported by some of the very banks it would have applied to.
- (My personal favorite) A bill that would have allowed the same-sex domestic partners of deceased Rhode Islanders to claim their remains and make funeral arrangements. For some context, read the governor's own veto statement, which offers several nit-picky excuses for the veto, and concludes with his (obvious) underlying reasoning: "This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage."
In other words, allowing a man to bury his gay lover would destroy the sanctity of marriage!
The bill passed the RI Assembly 63-1. I don't know who that "1" was, but he or she is probably Carcieri's only competition for Rhode Island Douche of the Century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
