*Second Update* I made a correction to a sentence below about the Ann Arbor News, because Jim Carty himself commented on this post. Awesome!
*Update* Today's Daily has a very appropriate story for this post, with the current EIC's response here; and I also discovered a very deep piece in last month's Atlantic Monthly about the state of the NYT.
In 2007 I wrote a column in the Daily about Journalism's failure as a profession to ask the tough questions, particularly concerning Operation Iraqi Freedom. At the time of course, no one knew the expanse of deception and lies in the Bush White House, but in my eyes, it began what I view as a downturn in the profession that should never run out of material or money.
Something near and dear to my heart then, is the health of the print journalism industry. I write this as Walter Isaacson publishes a very deep cover story in TIME Magazine titled, "How to Save Your Newspaper" -- I get it that the two fields I am most qualified for, journalism and nonprofit/historical work, are on a steep decline. I'm having a difficult time finding any work in either field, and so it's with a heavy heart that I pick up where I left off in that 2007 column and regrettably say that journalism is now losing its bully pulpit, its means for communicating information the Americans want, and need (information on Miley Cyrus and other celebrities notwithstanding). It's the modern-day equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein going to write their Watergate opus, and not having a typewriter. And it's accelerating.
Walter Isaacson's piece explains that a newspaper can be saved with a little restructuring, but I have a problem with this. He did go on "The Daily Show" and make his case to Jon Stewart, but it's a bit like a paradox to me. For example, in 2007 the New York Times did away with charging for its premium content, much to the delight of myself, because I could finally read Thomas Friedman on my own accord. Now, two years later, the Times and a lot of other dailies are cutting costs and staffs. The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press no longer deliver on some days of the week, Newsweek, TIME, Conde Nast and others have axed thousands of employees.
How does an organization like the New York Times all of a sudden fall back on its oath to not charge money for premium online content? I for one wouldn't pay for such a thing when it's already free. Isaacson's framework was charging a simple 99 cents for a pledge to use a site, and that would likely draw in a lot more revenue than chaging 10 or so dollars per month would. Journalism as an industry has become so open-source, that it's impossible to go back to something that would have worked five years ago. The Ann Arbor News has cut a ton of staff (and Jim Carty left to do Toledo Law *tear*), and it's mainly because people just are not reading print newspapers as much. I pick up a print copy of the NYT approximately once a month, and it says something about where media is going.
When I was interviewed for an internship with Automotive News, I was told that they were starting to go for exclusive online content, and thats what The Michigan Daily does now even with a lot of multimedia content and stories that are happening in the evening and overnight hours.
I'm no media mogul, but wouldn't it make sense to put out a product that is dependant entirely on readership, have it funded by advertising revenue, and grow the organization based on the quality of work you do? There's all these bloggers out there like myself who write stuff in cyberspace that would gladly work for the online arm of any publication than work in a big stuffy newsroom that has a 2 AM deadline for print (Michigan Daily).
It was no freak occurrence that President Obama called on a reporter for the Huffington Post in a primetime East Wing news conference...
12 February 2009
Abe's 200 !
I'll be brief: how appropriate that Obama got to celebrate the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial as President of the United States.
NYT has a great little historical analogy for Abe and Barack
And it made me remember a fantastic piece about where President Obama gets some of his influences for his great speeches and oratory manner.
A while back before Obama was sworn in, I began to think critically about a question: was Obama more of a Lincoln-type persona, or an authoritative FDR-type persona. The easy answer would be Lincoln, since Obama reads more about him and comes from the same state, but a lot of his decision-making in his early days has mirrored that of Franklin Roosevelt. And I don't mean that the country is in a quasi-depression and Obama has to rescue all of us. Those were far different times, and a lot more extraordinary, to me at least. I'm talking about the similar context in which Obama is operating, and the decisions he has to stay true to. The principle of FDR's presidency was that he had to spend money America didn't have in order to get people back to work. As it stands now, Obama is committing $789 billion to invest back into America's infrastructure and programs to have a ripple effect and cause people to apply for credit, buy mortgages, and pay bills.
I can't accurately answer that larger question, but it seems to me that what we are witnessing is a President that has people around him that will come to him and say, "look, this is what was done in the past, and it will work now." The whole reason for celebrating the 200th birthday of a dead President is not to paint the current office-holder as a second-coming, but to acknowledge that a lot of what was done in the past can still be, and will be, applied to our current struggle as a country to dig itself out of a very, very, large hole.
Arthur Schlesinger wrote in his personal journal upon returning from the Soviet Union in 1982, about how different the two societies were when it came to how they viewed their predecessors. He said, "We must respect the dignity of the past, as we must hope that our descendants will respect our own dignity. That Trotsky was subsequently considered an enemy of the state is no reason to deny the reality of his role in the Revolution. History is not a myth to be manipulated in the interests of one or another ruling class. History is a debt of honor we owe to the past."
Both Lincoln and FDR had very dark moments as President. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus in the interest of healing the wounds of the War Between the States. Roosevelt made the single biggest government budget (for the times), and it was so big, it was close to Socialism. And his New York brethren hated him for it.
It is through that even-handed humility that the successes, and errors, of Obama's predecessors must be appropriately applied to the present, not out of obligation but out of honor and respect.
NYT has a great little historical analogy for Abe and Barack
And it made me remember a fantastic piece about where President Obama gets some of his influences for his great speeches and oratory manner.
A while back before Obama was sworn in, I began to think critically about a question: was Obama more of a Lincoln-type persona, or an authoritative FDR-type persona. The easy answer would be Lincoln, since Obama reads more about him and comes from the same state, but a lot of his decision-making in his early days has mirrored that of Franklin Roosevelt. And I don't mean that the country is in a quasi-depression and Obama has to rescue all of us. Those were far different times, and a lot more extraordinary, to me at least. I'm talking about the similar context in which Obama is operating, and the decisions he has to stay true to. The principle of FDR's presidency was that he had to spend money America didn't have in order to get people back to work. As it stands now, Obama is committing $789 billion to invest back into America's infrastructure and programs to have a ripple effect and cause people to apply for credit, buy mortgages, and pay bills.
I can't accurately answer that larger question, but it seems to me that what we are witnessing is a President that has people around him that will come to him and say, "look, this is what was done in the past, and it will work now." The whole reason for celebrating the 200th birthday of a dead President is not to paint the current office-holder as a second-coming, but to acknowledge that a lot of what was done in the past can still be, and will be, applied to our current struggle as a country to dig itself out of a very, very, large hole.
Arthur Schlesinger wrote in his personal journal upon returning from the Soviet Union in 1982, about how different the two societies were when it came to how they viewed their predecessors. He said, "We must respect the dignity of the past, as we must hope that our descendants will respect our own dignity. That Trotsky was subsequently considered an enemy of the state is no reason to deny the reality of his role in the Revolution. History is not a myth to be manipulated in the interests of one or another ruling class. History is a debt of honor we owe to the past."
Both Lincoln and FDR had very dark moments as President. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus in the interest of healing the wounds of the War Between the States. Roosevelt made the single biggest government budget (for the times), and it was so big, it was close to Socialism. And his New York brethren hated him for it.
It is through that even-handed humility that the successes, and errors, of Obama's predecessors must be appropriately applied to the present, not out of obligation but out of honor and respect.
11 February 2009
Attention
Michael Phelps, Alex Rodriguez, Tim Geithner, Joe Biden, Tom Daschle, this song is for you guys:
I'm sure the list of names could be much longer but these will do nicely.
I'm sure the list of names could be much longer but these will do nicely.
03 February 2009
Oh Man It's Almost Time
It's National Signing Day-Eve, and I am pumped for Michigan's chances of landing a top recruiting class. RichRod has been out on the road nonstop since the end of the season, and as a little gift, Michigan got an early verbal commitment.
His name is Quinton Washington, and he's a large, very highly-rated Guard out of South Carolina.
Who says Michigan couldn't recruit nationally??
Oh wait, his name was Lee Corso.
If all the stars align tomorrow starting at 9am...Michigan can score a QB, some O-Linemen, and some skill players, all whom weren't originally going to commit to Michigan. Whatever RichRod did, don't be surprised of Michigan's class pops up in those top ten lists around the interwebs. Tomorrow is going to be fun.
His name is Quinton Washington, and he's a large, very highly-rated Guard out of South Carolina.
Who says Michigan couldn't recruit nationally??
Oh wait, his name was Lee Corso.
If all the stars align tomorrow starting at 9am...Michigan can score a QB, some O-Linemen, and some skill players, all whom weren't originally going to commit to Michigan. Whatever RichRod did, don't be surprised of Michigan's class pops up in those top ten lists around the interwebs. Tomorrow is going to be fun.
Sweet, Sweet Poetic Justice
Vice President Biden can officially eat his words, and has sunk even lower on my list of "Politicians I don't respect.":
He was supposed to say, "charge the duties well and faithfully," not the other way around. And Sir Gaffes-a-lot here had a card to read off of...
Nice work, Joe !
He was supposed to say, "charge the duties well and faithfully," not the other way around. And Sir Gaffes-a-lot here had a card to read off of...
Nice work, Joe !
01 February 2009
Fortune Magazine is Stupid.
I just found their 2009 list of the 100 Best Companies To Work For...
Do they know the economy is terrible right now??
Companies on the list include Starbucks (laying off 6,700 people as I type this), Microsoft (experiencing one of their worst years ever), and a host of financial companies (who in the hell would work for a bank/investment firm right now??)
It's completely subjective, and I don't agree with the list at all, but, decide for yourselves.
Fortune 100 List
Do they know the economy is terrible right now??
Companies on the list include Starbucks (laying off 6,700 people as I type this), Microsoft (experiencing one of their worst years ever), and a host of financial companies (who in the hell would work for a bank/investment firm right now??)
It's completely subjective, and I don't agree with the list at all, but, decide for yourselves.
Fortune 100 List
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
