tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5016253077154756564.post3850015949686411350..comments2024-03-10T13:52:18.927-04:00Comments on The Scary Lawyer Guy Blog: Bezos Buys Washington Post; Media Chokes On Its Own Pearl Clutchscarylawyerguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03340241283633171546noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5016253077154756564.post-67844548359489177422013-08-07T17:27:48.828-04:002013-08-07T17:27:48.828-04:00Very few journalists are corporate stenographers. ...Very few journalists are corporate stenographers. For one, real stenographers get paid more, so why bother if that's the only point of the job. But that's beside the point. Most journalists aren't in it for "the man" and would bristle or quit if their principles were compromised by the corporate machinery that owns whatever little slice of media they happen to work for. <br /><br />Viewers don't make the connections, sure, but the journalists themselves (ok, I don't know about Klein, specifically and DC-types may be an exception, I'm not sure) don't either. It's not stupidity, it's lack of actual connection other than a parent company.<br /><br />Yes, there was too much on Bezos and WaPo. But, look beyond that to the stories you don't read and maybe you'll see what all the nostalgia is about. You won't read it every day... not anymore... those days went away when the layoffs began and the gimmicks came along. But some days, you will find it. <br /><br />When I look at the coverage the Boston Globe did after the marathon bombing, for instance, I stand in awe. That sort of thing, on a smaller scale, happens more often than you may realize. And it has some value, even it is 90% less than what some bozo paid for it years ago... <br /><br />--JMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5016253077154756564.post-8359882683392364122013-08-07T17:26:52.188-04:002013-08-07T17:26:52.188-04:00Filling half a section with wire copy isn't a ...Filling half a section with wire copy isn't a business model, it's a cheap way to fill a paper and is the result of failed business models and a perverse lack of commitment to cover the communities and topics that matter in to readers of a local or metro paper (whether those readers buy the paper, read online, for free or pay, or hear excerpts on the local radio station). Deep cuts to reporting staff, a move to favoring stories that get the most clicks, but maybe don't fulfill the mission of many journalists (to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted... to hold institutions accountable and make sure people paying taxes (etc) know what's going on with that money... to inform people about things they didn't know they wanted to--or should--know) and an inability to really explain the value of professional, smart reporting (maybe because that isn't what owners or shareholders are after)have all led to your wire-copy-filled newspaper.<br /><br />The parent company of the Times of Trenton and the Star-Ledger long avoided the profit-before-people-and-journalism slippery slope. In 2009, Advance--owned by the Newhouse family--abandoned its longstanding no-layoff policy (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/at-newhouse-newspapers-a-change-in-a-no-layoffs-policy/?_r=0). Of course, that was after threatening to shut the paper down if some 200 people didn't accept buyouts. But still, the company maintained its journalistic promise for longer than most before the buyout threat.<br /><br />Newspapers did, indeed, fail to innovate fast enough, married for too long to a bloated and pricey sales force who--also for too long--focused on selling what they knew and how they knew it to be, never innovating. The main loser in this has been the reader, or potential reader. <br /><br />There are blowhards in every field, prognosticators who are in it for the fame and the byline or television appearance (even if they also espouse the afflict the comfortable ideal), and there are those who navel-gaze for far too long about an era long gone (and as you point out, actually not so different than the old days in some ways) when newspapers helped to, I think, smooth out the confirmation bias that has become the main way people consume and choose what they read and call news.<br /><br />But, I think if you stepped further into the world of journalism, you'd find for every Ezra Klein--for every big name, bold face--there are dozens of journalists who still feel they want to and can do something that matters. Because they do. The hand-wringing over the sale of the WaPo was certainly over the top, as were the twitter jokes and puns and the endless stories generated in the 24-hour period following the news. <br /><br />But, for most non-big-name, big-face journalists, I'd argue the angst was more a foray into nostalgia, not of the kind you point to as the perpetual agenda-fueled type, but rather of the possibility that newspapers--and the reporters who work for them--could and would be as grand as the days of Watergate. <br /><br />...cont'd<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5016253077154756564.post-76721474247075537162013-08-07T14:43:28.959-04:002013-08-07T14:43:28.959-04:00This article is spot on. The sale and subsequent o...This article is spot on. The sale and subsequent overreaction is much ado about nothing. As you have so eloquently pointed out, the wealthy have owned the media for quite awhile so Bezos buying the Post is status quo.Calvin Hobbeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10922830038410068967noreply@blogger.com