Media Curmudgeon

« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »

November 28, 2007

The Impressionists, YouTube, Quarterlife, and the Striking Writers

What connects the French Impressionists, YouTube, Quarterlife, and the WGA writers who are on strike?

The first Impressionist exhibition was mounted in 1874 by a group of independent painters who defied the classical formalism of the official Salon and the autocratic rule and conservative teaching of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. The group included Monet, Renoir, Degas, Pissarro, Cézanne, and Berthe Morisot, who were, to a large degree, excluded from the well-attended Salon and, thus, had a difficult time selling their work to a burgeoning middle-class market. The Impressionists formed an association that controlled the organization, distribution, and sale of their work and mounted an exhibition that would let people, not the establishment, judge their art and, more importantly, buy it.

In addition to 1) the dissatisfaction with the tradition of depicting religious and mythological scenes that imparted moral messages and 2) the desire to depict scenes of real life in a vibrant, new Paris, the invention of photography was an impetus for artists to invent new ways of painting. Photography was a disruptive visual technology that made accurate reproduction of images by painters outmoded. Photography forced many forward-thinking painters to approach their art in a new way and to find new ways to express themselves. At the same time, they wanted to sell their innovative work to a broader audience.

Instead of meticulously detailed renderings, innovative Impressionist painters produced impressions of a scene, painted how the light changed on a subject from morning to evening, emphasized the geometric shapes found in nature, and accepted the flatness of a canvas. These innovations led to cubism and eventually to abstract expressionism, which, of course, the Impressionists couldn’t possibly have imagined or predicted. They knew things had to change and they just wanted to make a living.

YouTube was founded in February 2005 by Steve Chan, Chad Hurley, and Jawed Karim, former employees of PayPal. By 2005 broadband Internet access had grown to the point that approximately 57 percent of Internet users in the US had a broadband connection, which meant they could watch videos online. Today, broadband is available to 81 percent of all users of the Internet. Like photography was in 1874, online video is a disruptive visual technology that takes control of video entertainment and information programming out of the hands of the conservative, establishment television networks and stations and puts it in the hands of viewers. Aspiring video artists can now cheaply produce videos, express themselves, and exhibit and distribute their work to the world on YouTube.

Furthermore, via online video, viewers now have access to entertainment series such as “Quarterlife,” the “new online series from Marshall Herskovitz and Edward Zwick, the creative team behind ‘My So-Called Life,’ ‘thirtysomething,’ ‘Legends of the Fall,’ and ‘Blood Diamond.’ It is the first time a network-quality series has been produced directly for the Internet. And it’s the first time an independent project of this distinction has been owned and controlled by its creators,” according to the “Quarterlife” website. One feature of www.quartelife.com is that people can post comments (text and video) about the “Quarterlife” episodes—it’s interactive.

The Impressionists couldn’t predict where their innovations would take art, the creators of YouTube, couldn’t predict where their innovation would take online video, and I doubt Herskovitz and Zwick know where “Quarterlife” will take entertainment, but all of these creators have bucked tradition and conventional wisdom, have taken control of their creations, and have allowed people interact with their art. The writers who are on strike more than likely don’t know how online video will change the exhibition and distribution system for their work but they understand that the Internet will have a huge impact on the current system that is controlled by the networks and producers of entertainment programming, and they want a fair share of this new online revenue stream.

It is possible that a new, interactive, video art form will develop in ways that we can’t imagine. It’s possible that the writers will take control of the exhibition, distribution, and sale of their work like the Impressionists did. Who knows? But one thing I do know is that I can’t wait to see who will be the new Monet.

Posted by Charles Warner at 06:50 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

November 24, 2007

Response to Guest Blogger, Chuck Wooldridge

Guest blogger, Chuck Wooldridge, a professor of Chinese history at Bryn Mawr College, asked for my and my readers’ thoughts on recent media coverage of China and on management’s responsibility for various product safety scandals in the last several months.. Two of my intelligent readers responded, as Wooldridge predicted, by finding “what they wish to look for” and berating the Chinese government for past sins, but didn’t adequately address media coverage of China, which for a blog titled Media Curmudgeon is sort of relevant.

I think Wooldridge makes a good point, which is that the media doesn’t do a good job of covering China, or, for that matter, any complicated issue, in my view. But we have to define what we mean as “the media.” When I refer to the media, I am like most people and generally mean the fishbowl media: commercial television (broadcast and cable), national and major-market newspapers (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times), large-circulation national news magazines (Time, and Newsweek), high-traffic news websites (CNN, MSNBC, Google News, Yahoo News), and radio (nationally syndicated talk shows, such as Rush Limbaugh, and NPR).

Like most humans, I can’t keep more than seven things on my mind at one time, and a concept such as the media is no exception—I can’t get my neurons around more than about six types of media. Of course, the problem is that when we stereotype anything, the media included, the stereotype becomes a broad, all-encompassing generalization that is meaningless when applied to a specific element—a medium, a person, or a group of people. To include both the NY Times and Rush Limbaugh in a single definition of the media is absurd on the face of it and clearly demonstrates what’s wrong and dangerous with stereotyping.

Also, the news media typically don’t put news items in an historical context, which is understandable because they neither have time or nor much of a journalistic memory. The media’s charge, as stated in the Hutchins Commission on Freedom of the Press (1947) is to present “a truthful, comprehensive, and intelligent account of the day’s events in a context which gives them meaning.” This is an idealistic goal that has never been achieved, but it points out that news is about what’s new—the day’s events, not yesterday’s, last month’s, or last year’s. The media rarely provides context or has a memory, especially when it has to fit in commercials, hold and entertain an audience, and please advertisers.

Furthermore, Herbert Gans in his seminal book, Deciding What’s News, identified six enduring values in the news:

1. Ethnocentrism – “Like the news of other countries, America news values its own nation above all, even though it sometimes disparages blatant patriotism. This ethnocentrism comes through most explicitly in foreign news, which judges other countries by the extent to which they live up to or imitate American practices and values.”
2. Altruistic Democracy - “While foreign news suggests quite explicitly that democracy is superior to dictatorship, and the more so if it follows American forms…”
3. Responsible Capitalism - “The underlying posture of the news toward the economy resembles that taken toward the polity: an optimistic faith that in the good society, businessmen and women will compete with each other in order to create increased prosperity for all…” and that “…business officials are expected to be honest and efficient; but while corruption and bureaucratic misbehavior are as undesirable in business and in government, they are nevertheless tolerated to a somewhat greater extent in the former.”
4. Small Town Pastoralism - “Bigness is feared, among other things, as impersonal and inhuman.” Not relevant to this discussion.
5. Individualism – The glorification of rugged individualism. Not relevant to this discussion.
6. Moderatism – An enduring value that discourages excess and extremism.…groups that exhibit what is seen as extreme behavior are criticized in the news…”

If we look are the four enduring values in bold above, we can understand why the media doesn’t do a good job of covering China and tends to blame China instead of American management for some of the recent product failures.

Gans wrote Deciding What’s News in 1979, but I believe his enduring values still endure and help us understand media coverage today.

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:42 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

November 21, 2007

Media Coverage of Chinese Product Failures

Guest blogger Chuck Wooldridge writes:

"I had a question for the knowledgeable readers of Media Curmudgeon, and Charlie suggested I post as a guest blogger. I wanted to hear their thoughts on media coverage of China, and his readers' opinions about the responsibility of management in various recent product safety scandals.

My question is: to what extent are different media outlets blaming the Chinese government for what could easily be considered the management failures of companies operating in China?

I will admit that my own background gives me a certain bias in this matter. I teach Chinese history at the university level, and I see a great deal of bad information being spread about China. An example of something I think I do understand better than most is the history of Tibet. Those advocating Tibetan independence typically claim that Tibet was an independent state prior to the Chinese invasion of 1950.

Supporters of the current regime claim that Tibet had been part of the Qing Empire, the last imperial Chinese dynasty, and that the "invasion" of Tibet was really the final step in a "reunification" following many years of civil war.

The facts of the matter don't really support either interpretation.
Tibet was indeed quite independent; prior to 1950, Chinese law had never applied to Tibet, and China did not collect taxes from Tibet.
But the Qing Empire had taken on a role previously held by Mongolian states as protectors of Tibetan security, giving the Dalai Lama (in charge of Tibet's largest monastery complex) support through military might. In domestic affairs Tibet was autonomous; in foreign affairs it was a protectorate of the emperor of China.

The point of this long digression is that, with regards to China, people tend to find what they wish to look for. It seems to me that some of the things that people wish to stress about China are its great economic growth, its potential military power, and its failure to abide by the rule of law. All of these things are true. Local governments often collude with businessmen to confiscate land illegally, to underpay workers (here meaning: paying workers less than contractually obligated to pay), and to quell any form of protest.

And certainly the current government of China is in no way democratic. It has, for example, recently begun a campaign to confiscate Lonely Planet guides because of a map that makes Taiwan appear to be a separate country. So there's plenty of room to criticize various levels of Chinese government.

I wonder, however, about whether the government is really at fault in the recent product safety cases. Foreign companies have chosen to move their factories to China. Isn't the management of those companies just as responsible for quality control in China as it would be if the factories were in the United States? Is the (very real) corruption of the Chinese government in this case a scapegoat for the failures of individual companies? Are the media giving us a full picture of the story? When Mattel, for example, apologized to the Chinese government for its own failures to ensure product safety, do you think the story was adequately covered?

I'd love to know what the Media Curmudgeon and your readers think."

Posted by Charles Warner at 10:05 AM | Comments (3) | Print |

Chuck Wooldridge at November 22, 2007 09:21 AM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at November 21, 2007 09:09 PM writes:

---

digibandit at November 21, 2007 12:26 PM writes:

---

November 20, 2007

Wrong, But Right

Greg Todd, a smart lawyer and friend, wrote in an email to me:

"Section 257(b) of the Federal Communications Act (as amended by the 1996 Telecommunications Act) says that in issuing regulations, the FCC shall 'seek to promote the policies and purposes of this Act favoring diversity of media voices, vigorous economic competition, technological advancement and promotion of the public interest, convenience and necessity.'

"'Localism'" is addressed in section 614 on television stations. The FCC is directed 'to afford particular attention to the value of localism' in determining television station broadcasting requests.

I think you can keep watching Bill Moyers in reasonably good conscience!"

So the words "competition," "diversity," and "localism" did appear in the Act, even though my search didn't find them. I was wrong.

But I believe I am right in suggesting that Moyers twisted the words in and intent of the Act to fit his own agenda. In his "Bill Moyers Journal" video he did say the FCC's "charge" was to "ensure" these elements. As Greg Todd wrote, the Act says to "favor" diversity and vigorous economic competition and "afford particular attention" to the value of localism--not to ensure them by means of strangling regulation.

I believe FCC Chairman Martin has considered the Act's guidelines. Certainly there is vigorous economic competition. Jack Myers, whose economic forecasts have been more accurate than any I know of over the years, predicts advertising spending for newspapers will be off 4.6 percent, local and national spot television will be off 6.0 percent, and terrestrial radio will be off 2.0 percent in 2007. The Internet is having a significant impact on these media. Martin is right--for newspapers to survive in the long run they need the profits from TV, radio stations, and, of course, their online versions.

The only reason there are three newspapers in New York (diversity) is because Rupert Murdock is willing for The New York Post to lose an estimated $30-40 million a year. His News Corp. owns two television stations in New York that make enough money to support the Post's losses and its fanatic approval of the Iraq war and the Bush administration.

Diversity is a nice concept, but what does it mean? Does it mean diversity in ownership (which I think the intent of the Act was) or does it mean a diversity of voices and editorial position, or both?

Diversity in ownership is a good idea, I suppose, but is there any evidence that diverse ownership serves the public good, convenience and necessity? Do owners who are not part of a big media conglomerate serve the public better or do more news and public affairs programming? Do they do higher quality programming, more investigative journalism, less celebrity coverage? I taught at the University of Missouri School of Journalism, so I can claim I'm from Missouri--show me and I'll believe it.

As far as diverse editorial voices, what media outlets other than newspapers editorialize anymore? And how much good does it do to have diverse opinions on the airwaves if no one views or listens? As George Bernard Shaw suggested, you've got to hide a message in a palatable meal to get people to swallow it. It doesn't work to try to push it down their throats. Successful, experienced broadcasters understand this principle, most local idealogues don't.

I don't care who owns a radio or television station, which is what the FCC regulates, as long as the stations serve the public good, convenience, and necessity. Public service should be the issue, not ownership, that Moyers, the Free Press organization, and the public should focus on.

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:56 AM | Comments (0) | Print |

Moyers’s Media Myths

Bill Moyers is one of my favorite television personalities. Note that I didn’t call him a journalist, even though he bills himself as one and spends much of his time on and off the airwaves defending journalists, defending free speech, slamming the Bush administrating, and bashing big media—all of which I’m wholeheartedly in favor of as an avowed liberal. But I didn’t call him a journalist because real journalists don’t twist the facts to further their own agenda, which, I regret to say, Moyers has.

In a video introduction to the current “Bill Moyers Journal,” Moyers intones in his calm, sincere, Texas drawl that “despite overwhelming public opposition across the country and the political spectrum, the FCC chairman, Kevin Martin, isn’t letting up in his relentless push to allow a handful of media giants to swallow up more of your local media.” Not exactly unbiased, but he doesn’t twist the facts too far out of shape.

On the video, after a reporter does a package showing FCC public hearings in which people are furious at Martin and rant against his plan to loosen some rules (more about those rules later), Moyers states, “It’s the FCC’s charge to insure competition, localism, and diversity in media.” Most viewers probably nodded their heads in agreement, saying to themselves, “yes, that must be true, Bill Moyers knows what he’s talking about.” Not me.

In the 1970s I was a VP of CBS Radio and a VP and general manager of three NBC radio stations in Chicago and New York. At both companies I went to seminars conducted by lawyers who went over FCC rules and regulations in painful detail because general managers are responsible, first and foremost, to keep a station’s valuable FCC license. I don’t remember ever hearing the words “insure competition, localism, and diversity.” The phrase that was repeated over and over and over again in the FCC rules was that radio and TV stations had to operate in the public’s “good, convenience, and necessity.”

In 1996, Congress passed the Telecommunication Act, which updated many old FCC rules in effect since 1934 and, in effect, deregulated the broadcasting industry and allowed companies like Clear Channel communications to own multiple stations in multiple markets. Clear Channel bought over 1,200 radio stations, as many as eight in major markets, and it was supposed operate them in the public’s good, convenience, and necessity.

I Googled the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and searched the over 120-page document for the words “localism,” “competition,” and “diversity.” As I suspected, I never found those words. Therefore, I surmise that the “FCC’s charge” is what Moyers saw in his dreams. He’s creating his own myth—what he wishes the FCC’s charge to be—in order to promote his own agenda.

Throughout his introductory video, Moyers uses phrases such as “runaway consolidation” and “media giants.” Unfortunately, those concepts, too, are not based on the reality of what’s going on today in the media. In fact, as Jack Shafer points out in his article on Slate titled “Big Media Octopuses, Cutting Off Tentacles: Is the age of media deconsolidation upon us?” many media conglomerates are de-conglomerating because they can’t effectively manage big, sprawling portfolios of media businesses, and Wall Street knows it. Shafer nails it when he writes, “…the current round of media deconsolidation isn't driven by politics, media ‘reformista’ activism, or government regulation. It's all about business. In the long run, entrepreneurs tend to have a very hard time making media conglomeration pay off.”

Shafer also notes that, “E.W. Scripps Co. and Belo Corp. are among the most recent media conglomerates to spin themselves apart. Scripps announced plans in October to cleave itself into two publicly traded companies—a newspaper and television stations group and an outfit owning Scripps' cable channels and online shopping properties. In a similar move earlier in the month, Belo divorced its newspapers from its TV stations to create two new firms. Wall Street, which had urged the breakups, rewarded both companies with bumps in their stock prices.” The New York Times Co., News Corp., Clear Channel, and Disney have all shed media assets in the last several years, and most analysts are predicting that Time Warner’s new CEO, Jeff Bewkes, will sell off AOL and perhaps Time, Inc. Shafer and the facts have debunked Moyers’s media conglomerate myth.

Also, this de-conglomeration trend has the effect of increasing competition, not decreasing it. The other thing that is increasing competition is the Internet--it’s killing newspapers and hurting radio--not the FCC. And that competition comes from the marketplace, not from either lack of or too much government regulation. So much for the FCC’s so-called charge to increase competition; that’s the last thing any radio or television station, media-giant owned or locally owned, wants. So, Moyers’s notion about the FCC needing to increase competition is a myth.

Localism, too, is a fuzzy-headed dream. If the government took broadcast stations away from ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, Clear Channel, or Citadel and gave their frequencies to local owners, does Moyers and the media wonks of the Free Press really believe underfunded local owners with little or no broadcast experience or expertise would do any better? Just look what happened when local governments gave cable companies franchises on the condition that they provided local access channels. What went on those access channels? News, information, or discussion of important issues? No, they were filled with self-absorbed, ugly people talking naked or doing other things that were unwatchable. Moyers’s localism is more than a myth, it’s a nightmare.

I’ll continue to watch “Bill Moyers Journal,” but less frequently and with much more skepticism than in the past. He was much more in his element when he interviewed Joseph Campbell in the PBS program “The Power of Myth.”

Posted by Charles Warner at 09:01 AM | Comments (1) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at November 20, 2007 11:40 AM writes:

---

November 19, 2007

Karl Rove, The NY Times, and the Writers’ Strike

What do Newsweek hiring Karl Rove, the New York Times, and the current strike by the members of the Writers Guild of America have in common?

1. Let’s examine the question by beginning with Karl Rove, who was hired this past week as a columnist for Newsweek. Joseph A. Palermo wrote on the Huffington Post: “Newsweek magazine hiring Karl Rove to be a political commentator illustrates everything that is wrong with the corporate media system. Here is a guy whose scorched earth politics have left the nation reeling with ill effects and crippling divisions and he is rewarded with a prominent mouthpiece for his vitriol by one of the nation's most widely circulated newsweeklies? Newsweek might as well give a column on the subject of humanitarian living to Charles Manson.”

   Why would Newsweek open itself to such criticism? Editor Jon Meachum must have known he’d get this kind of flack, especially from the left of the aisle, which the Huffington Post represents. To deflect such criticism is probably why, according to Paul McLeary in a Columbia Journalism Review post, Meachum told “The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that his magazine's readers ‘are sophisticated enough to know that what they get from Karl has to be judged in the context of who Karl is...Readers will have to decide if he's simply an apologist.’”

   Newsweek also hired the liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas, who created the Daily Kos, to provide some balance to Rove, I suppose. But hiring Kos, although controversial, does not seem to be creating as much strum und drang as hiring Rove is.

   McLeary reveals the key to Newsweek’s decision, I believe, when he predicts that the magazine will get Kos’s and “Rove's articles linked on plenty of political blogs, and that will allow Newsweek to claim success.” The reason Newsweek hired Rove is because of the Internet and Newsweek’s realization that it must move its content to the Web. The Internet is a disruptive technology that is reeking havoc on traditional information and entertainment distribution systems.

2. The New York Times is handling the migration of its content to the Web better than any other media outlet. I’m often critical of The Times, especially its top management and the Public Editor, but it is the best newspaper in the country—truly the Journal of Record and a vitally important national treasure. Its website is sensational. It is constantly evolving, learning, improving, and expanding its features and content. Such new features as Blogging Heads—brief debates/discussions between two experts on video about current issues—are compelling, interesting, and informative. The Times is learning how to deal with reader comments, which creates a conversation with its vast, intelligent, involved audience, which is something that has never happened before—a welcome innovation. It has numerous blogs (and growing each week), such as environmental reporter Andrew Revkin’s Dot Earth. The Times “gets it,” has understood the disruptive nature of the Internet, and is adopting and adopting better than any media monolith.
3. The current writers’ strike is about the Internet. The writers realized they gave away too much to the producers several years ago on DVD residuals and are determined not to do the same with the Internet. The writers want to get paid when what they write is put on the Internet. The producers claim they are not making any money on the Internet, so there is nothing to pay the writers. The writers realize this claim is specious and are looking to the future as information and entertainment content migrates to the Web.
   
   Mark Andreessen, the co-founder of Netscape, writes a really smart blog, Blog.Pmarca.com, in which he wrote recently, “The writers' strike, and the studios' response to the strike, may radically accelerate a structural shift in the media industry—a shift of power from studios and conglomerates towards creators and talent.” And further on he writes, “The Internet has already been forcing a rethink of the structure of the media industry, particularly for entertainment. The strike is kicking that rethink into high gear.”

What Newsweek hiring Karl Rove, The Times, and the writers’ strike have in common is the Internet and how this disruptive technology is drastically changing the media. Old models don’t work, which many of the producers and distributors of content haven’t figured out yet. I have news for these Luddites—the creators will win. No one remembers who distributed or sold paintings by Raphael, da Vinci, Rembrandt, Manet, Van Gough, or Picasso, or who published Homer, Dante, Dumas, Tolstoy, Dickens, or Faulkner no matter how rich these businessmen were.

Posted by Charles Warner at 12:43 PM | Comments (3) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at November 22, 2007 01:38 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at November 19, 2007 05:27 PM writes:

---

digibandit at November 19, 2007 03:27 PM writes:

---

November 17, 2007

How Should We Evaluate Second Chances?

In the media in the last week there was lots of back and forth about giving people a second chance and whether or not these new chances were a good idea or not. The first second-chance debate was about Henry Blodget writing in the NY Times and another was about Don Imus returning to the airwaves on WABC-AM.

In the case of Henry Blodget, Clark Hoyt, the Public Editor of the NY Times, was not too thrilled with Blodgett writing Op-Ed pieces and in the DealBook blog on the Times’ website. He wrote in his November 11, column, “Blodget is…a man with a past. In 2003, he was permanently barred from the securities industry and fined $4 million for issuing fraudulent and misleading research reports on Internet stocks, violating federal laws.”

Hoyt wrote that he thought there were two questions that should be asked about Blodget appearing in The Times: “One is whether The Times properly identifies Blodget when he writes for the paper. I don’t think so. His name was big in financial news at one time, but many readers do not know him.” And “The bigger question is whether The Times should be publishing him at all…I believe in second chances, and Blodget seems to be doing fine establishing a new career. But why would The Times give a former analyst who lied to investors a platform to write about financial markets? …each time the newspaper uses Blodget as it has, it is conferring greater expert status on him. These deals work two ways. The Times’s luster may help Blodget. But some of his taint rubs off on The Times.”

I think Hoyt is using the wrong criteria for evaluating whether or not to publish Blodget. The first criterion should be whether or not he’s a writer who offers new ideas, new information, and excellent, penetrating analysis to The Times’s readers. The Times’ editors seem to think so, as I do, because I read many of his blog posts on Internet Outsider and Silicon Alley Insider. The second criterion should not be whether or not he did something wrong, which he clearly did, but whether or not he takes responsibility, admits it, apologizes, and attempts to correct the problem. Hoyt quoted his predecessor as Public Editor, Byron Calame, who said, according to Hoyt, “It wasn’t enough for Blodget to make a parenthetical aside in [an] article to “an unfortunate theory of mine — one that, along with some e-mails that caught the notice of the Securities and Exchange Commission, helped my Wall Street career go the way of eToys.” Calame and, I assume, Hoyt didn’t think The Times should publish Blodget.

Blodget’s quote sounds like he’s in a state of denial about what he did; he doesn’t sound contrite or apologetic. It sounds more like what he’s sorry about is that he got caught. Therefore, no matter how excellent his analysis is, I’m not sure that I trust what he writes. How do I really know he’s not corruptible like he was at Merrill Lynch if he really doesn’t think he did anything wrong?

On the other hand, Don Imus did a bad thing when he called the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy headed hos,” for which he was fired by CBS and NBC—and correctly so, as I wrote in this blog—and for which he apologized. His apologies were sincere, I believe, and he went to a lot of trouble to make them. A lot of Imus’s fans were livid at his being fired—unfairly they thought. But he did what Americans loved for a sinner to do; he apologized. Therefore, most reasonable people forgave him—the Rutgers team forgave him. WABC-AM forgave him and hired him to do morning drive time staring December 3, which means that station management must believe he will stay within the boundaries of acceptable taste. After all, WABC airs Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, so its taste boundaries are pretty wide. Nevertheless, the station has decided to put Imus on a 21-second delay, just in case he crosses even WABC's wide boundaries. Trust in rehabilitation goes just so far, it seems.

So, I guess it’s OK to give people a second chance if they apologize and mean it, but put them on a short leash just in case they’re insincere. But if management decides to give people a second chance in the media, don’t criticize management for doing so, Mr. Hoyt, because if you do, you can easily be accused of setting yourself up to look good by being able to say, “I told you so,” which critics, pundits, and columnists just love to do.

Posted by Charles Warner at 10:06 PM | Comments (3) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at November 19, 2007 05:12 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at November 18, 2007 02:39 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at November 18, 2007 02:26 PM writes:

---

November 12, 2007

A Match Made In Political Heaven

I don’t have a large number of readers to my blog, but those who do read it are ridiculously brilliant, rollickingly well-informed, ravenously curious, ravishingly attractive, and rakishly seductive. One of my typical readers sent me a funny blog post that the wingnut Lyndon LaRouche wrote today (November 12) titled, “Giuliani Was Set Up!” LaRouche claims Rudy is being set up to fail because of his dark past (mob ties, jailbird father, and Bernard Kerrick) by Michael Bloomberg’s people so the current NY mayor can swoop in at the last minute and seize the Republican nomination as a white knight—a short, Jewish knight, and white, no less.

That’s some conspiracy theory, and one that you won’t see or hear in the main-stream media. Only in the crazy blogsphere.

Here’s another much more probable and realistic conspiracy theory: I think there is a conspiracy alright, but it’s between Rudy and Hillary. I think they have secretly agreed that as soon as they’ve sealed their respective party’s nomination for president they will divorce their current spouses, get married, and then no matter who gets elected they’ll reign together as president. They both crave power enough and are morally corrupt enough to make this pact with the devil—or each other.

I also believe both candidates’ advisers are courting Steven Colbert to run on their tickets as VP. Unbeatable—two comedians on either ticket.

Of course, revealing these conspiracies is against my own best interests. As you know, I have thrown my hat in the ring to be Colbert’s VP candidate. When I announced, one of my brilliant readers asked if I would take contributions from drug and oil companies and lobbyists. I said, “Of course. I’ll take money from anyone. I’m corrupt and am the only candidate who will admit it. How’s that for honesty?”

I know all of you are praying (well, I don’t think my readers pray, so I should say that you’re hoping) the writer’s strike will be over soon and Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert will be back live. Then, we'll all know what’s going on in the world and won’t have to stoop to the blogsbphere for a smile.

Posted by Charles Warner at 09:24 PM | Comments (1) | Print |

digibandit at November 12, 2007 10:33 PM writes:

---

November 11, 2007

Tribute To Norman Mailer

Guest blogger Bill Grimes writes:

In an article in The New York Sun today on the life of Norman Mailer, Gore Vidal was quoted as saying, “He was interesting because he was so interested.” And that brought back a vivid memory of my brief encounter with Mr. Mailer.

It occurred in the mid-nineties in what was then the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington, DC. It was just about noon and I was seated in the mezzanine floor waiting to meet a business associate for lunch. The entrance to the hotel was on the street level floor below and from my seat in a high back cushioned chair I had a clear view of the visitors entering the hotel.

There were no others sitting in this lounge and I was leafing through a copy of US News and World Report that had been placed on a nearby table. I glanced down beyond the stairs to the revolving front door of the hotel and saw a man with a prominent white head of hair and a slight slump of step enter the lobby.

It was Norman Mailer. I had recently finished his novel, “Harlot’s Ghost,” a story of the CIA in the pre- and immediate post-Kennedy years. It was a subject of great interest to me and although this Mailer novel had not received high critical acclaim, I had been enthralled by it.

Slowly he ambled up the stairs. Our eyes met and with no afore thought I began clapping my hands without them actually touching, showing the gesture of an ovation ,but making no sound. He smiled instantly and walked over towards me. I arose and said spontaneously. “Mr. Mailer, I want to thank you for Harlot’s Ghost. It gave me much pleasure and insight.”

He looked at me for a long moment with piercing blue eyes affixed on mine and said, “Well, thank you very much. It was a labor,” he said with a brief chuckle. “What is your name?” He extended his hand and we shook. His grip was as firm as his beam. I answered.

“And, Mr. Grimes, where do you live and what is your main interest?”
I replied and mumbled something about having been CEO of ESPN. He said, "That is great stuff. I would love to see a little more boxing on the channel. What do you think?"

I agreed, not wanting to delay the great man even though he seemed to be in no hurry. He said goodbye and good luck and I expressed a desire to read his next book.

I’ll always remember Norman Mailer "because he was so interested."

Posted by Charles Warner at 06:43 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

November 08, 2007

Writers Unite, Lose Your Chains (Networks)

Guest blogger Dave Nelson writes:

"There are now thousands of people walking picket lines and sitting in bars—creatively bullshitting one another—who are usually busy bullshitting the rest of us by scribbling the phrases that keep us all from having to think about our terrible jobs, spouses, responsibilities, fears, inadequacies, and problems.

And the bosses and financiers who control the entertainment distribution pipelines are like any other greedy businessman out to screw the little guy, only today the little guys can turn their energies toward viewing escapist comedy and tragedy in order to forget about cleaning out a bedpans or driving trucks.

My advice to the striking writers—the way to deal with the television networks is NOT to deal with them.

The writers should begin by creating a bunch of wwebsites on which they can create a 24/7 parade of funny and dramatic programming (like one big “Saturday Night Live”) that encompasses the whole spectrum of entertainment programming.

The writers can create synergy with You Tube and the whole user-generated-content universe for visual support and Current TV for news coverage; the whole collaboration could become the People’s Television Network (PTN).

And when PTN gets a billion hits worldwide, which it most certainly would, the advertisers would come in droves. Then, PTN could expand into separate programs in different entertainment genres across the Internet and the decline of the network dinosaurs will be accelerated in a few years.

The hedge funds will pour financing in and actors and directors and all the necessary support folks will eventually follow the money and gravitate en masse to the new online enterprise. There are enough creative and production folks available in Hollywood to staff hundreds of PTN programs in dozens of niches—a perfect format for the Internet.

And the suits and bean counters at the broadcast and cable television networks will all be sitting around in shock wondering, “What went wrong.”

So, writers unite! Dump the networks! Start doing what writers do—write—and put it on the Web. Entertain us and laugh all the way to the bank.

And then you can start exploiting the little guys—it’s the American way.

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:23 AM | Comments (1) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at November 8, 2007 05:54 PM writes:

---

November 07, 2007

NY Times Public Editor—Bad Reporting

The New York Times’ Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, wrote a column on Sunday, November 4, titled “Civil Discourse, Meet the Internet," in which he claimed, “How does the august Times, which has long stood for dignified authority, come to terms with the fractious, democratic culture of the Internet, where readers expect to participate but sometimes do so in coarse, bullying and misinformed ways?

The answer so far is cautiously, carefully and with uneven success.
The issue is timely because last week, with very little notice, The Times took baby steps toward letting readers comment on its Web site about news articles and editorials…”

You got your facts wrong, Mr. Public Editor. Do you read your own newspaper online? On October 12 (not “last week”), I wrote the following:
“At about 9:00 a.m. this morning the lead story on the NY Times’ website was ‘Gore and U.N. Panel Win Peace Prize for Climate Work,’ and just to the right a picture of a man holding a big picture of Al Gore with the caption, ‘Above, the chairman of the Nobel Committee.’ Directly underneath, in larger, bold blue type, was ‘Comment by Benjamin Toresco: ‘Discredits the Nobel Prize...who will be next year, Michael Moore?’ About forty minutes later the comment had been updated; the new one by Richard Sypher read, ‘The Nobel Committee continues its efforts of rewarding left-wing alarmists.’

I think posting these negative comments points out a huge dilemma for the Times and other online news content providers. What was the Times attempting to communicate by posting these comments and what did it communicate? Is posting comments to the lead story a good idea or a bad idea? My first reaction to the ‘Discredits the Nobel Prize’ comment was outrage. How could the Times give front-web page attention to a wingnut? How could the Times give credence to such crap?

So I went to the Comments page to see for myself. When I checked it at about 9:40 a.m., there were 258 comments. A large majority of them were favorable—praising Gore and the Nobel Committee. But many were negative, such as the comments mentioned above. One by Jack was, ‘Who is Al Gore. Never heard of him. George Bush should have won the peace prize. ‘Peace Through Strength.’ Or, ‘Al Gore is a fake. I cannot believe a person with such disregard for the truth could win this award,’ by Harold Majors. I was aghast. How long had these people been living in the state of Denial, clearly America’s 51st state?”

You also wrote in your column, Mr. Hoyt, “On Tuesday, readers were invited to comment on a single article in Science Times and on the paper’s top editorial, using a link that accompanied each. Few did because there was no promotion of the change, but as the week went on and more articles were opened to comment, participation picked up.”

Picked up last week? There were at least 258 comments on the Gore story on October 12, many by conservative wingnuts, so how does this compute with what you wrote in your Public Editor's column, “A particularly hot topic on a blog can generate more than 500 comments — 500, that is, that meet guidelines requiring that a comment be coherent, on point, not obscene or abusive, and not a personal attack.” There were dozens of personal attacks on Al Gore on October the 12th that The Times allowed on the website, and to which I objected in my blog titled, “NY Times’ Front Page Wingnut Deniers.”

You wrote, “From Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, on down, executives and editors of The Times use similar language to describe their goal: they want the newspaper’s Web site to nurture a healthy, “civil discourse” on the topics of the day.” I agree, but the comments on October 12th did not come close to reaching that goal—too many wingnut deniers.

I’m delighted The Times is allowing comments, as they often do lead to a richer civil discourse, and I appreciate The Times’ editors’ dilemmas in editing comments. I also appreciate what you do—trying to keep The Times reporting truthful and fair. I suggest you apply those same standards to yourself and read your paper online so that you know when an editor is not being accurate in telling you last week was the first time for comments. I’d like to be able to trust what The Times' ombudsman writes.

Posted by Charles Warner at 09:34 PM | Comments (1) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at November 8, 2007 11:26 PM writes:

---

November 01, 2007

Colbert’s Campaign—Too Much Coverage?

When I tossed my hat into the ring to be Stephen Colbert’s VP—an opportunity to get some laughs for a satiric campaign that makes fun of the main-stream media—the issue of media coverage never occurred to me. But some critics believe Colbert’s campaign may have received too much coverage.

As Jon Friedman, the excellent senior correspondent and columnist for MarketWatch.com, wrote on October 30, “The clever host of Comedy Central's ‘The Colbert Report’ is holding the usually clear-eyed media in the palm of his hand and bringing out the worst in some star-struck journalists who should know better.” And later in the column, Friedman wrote, “It's depressing to watch respected journalists lower themselves just to tickle Colbert's funny bone. Dowd is the wittiest columnist anywhere, and Russert is the best interviewer in television news. They shouldn't be kissing up to a comedian, even one as talented as Colbert.”

Friedman is right, because by covering Colbert’s campaign, some media are not covering some other important stories. Jerry Lanson wrote an article in the Christian Science Monitor titled “War protests: Why no coverage?” with the sub-head “Newspapers have a duty to inform citizens about such democratic events.” In the article Lanson writes, “Coordinated antiwar protests in at least 11 American cities this weekend raised anew an interesting question about the nature of news coverage: Are the media ignoring rallies against the Iraq war because of their low turnout or is the turnout dampened by the lack of news coverage? …[that]most Americans oppose the war in Iraq is well established..an ABC News-Washington Post poll in late September found that 55 percent felt Democrats in Congress had not gone far enough in opposing the war.

…Given that context, it seems remarkable to me that in some of the 11 cities in which protests were held – Boston and New York, for example – major news outlets treated this "National Day of Action" as though it did not exist. As far as I can tell, neither The New York Times nor The Boston Globe had so much as a news brief about the march in the days leading up to it. The day after, The Times, at least in its national edition, totally ignored the thousands who marched in New York and the tens of thousands who marched nationwide. The Globe relegated the news of 10,000 spirited citizens (including me) marching through Boston's rain-dampened streets to a short piece deep inside its metro section. A single sentence noted the event's national context.”

I agree that the anti-war rallies are more important for some media to cover than Colbert’s faux candidacy. “Some” media would be newspapers, serious news magazines and television news outlets (notice I didn’t call TV news “serious”—most of it isn’t) because they are constricted by space and time in how many stories they can cover; therefore, they have to make either-or choices. Websites have virtually an infinite amount of space, so giving space to one story on a website doesn’t mean it can’t cover another one. Furthermore, most news websites have a “most popular” (or “most emailed”) feature that allows readers to track which stories resonate with other readers and select those that interest them.

This is a good journalistic system: have editors pick which stories they think are most important, that readers need to know about, and also let readers pick the stories they find most interesting from a list of what other readers like. It’s similar to an online Chinese news menu--lots of choices. This morning on the NY Times website, I read the three top stories: “Nominee’s Stand May Avoid Tangle of Torture Cases,” “Ex-F.B.I. Agent’s Trial Fizzles, as Does Chief Witness,” and “Room at the Top for Black Executives?” and the three Most Popular –Emailed, “Hello, India? I Need Help With My Math,” “Chinese Chemicals Flow Unchecked Onto World Drug Market,” and “Maureen Dowd: Hillary la Française, Cherchez la Femme?” I also checked Most Popular-Blogged, and Most Popular-Searched and saw nothing that interested me. Then I read the three links to Stephen Colbert’s faux candidacy featured in a large Opinion box titled “The Colbert column.”

I found it interesting that none of the Most Popular features or any of the stories picked by the Times’ newspaper editors for the website included any mention of Colbert. But the Times website editors gave him a prominent box below the fold on the site, which I was, of course, interested in. Therefore, reading the Times online is a much richer experience than reading it as an old-fashioned newspaper, plus it saves a lot of trees—it’s very self-righteously green. It’s interactive, too. I can post comments on the Times website and see other people's comments. I can’t talk back to the gray lady in newsprint, so online is a much more satisfying experience.

Jon Friedman and Jerry Lanson’s criticism is OK as far as it goes, but it is limited to traditional, dinosaur media that has space and time limits. Let’s hope coverage of Colbert’s campaign continues on the Web because it’s fun. But let’s also hope that Colbert uses his campaign to continue his blistering, satirical criticism of the dinosaur media and not just to promote his book and himself. Remember our campaign slogan, Stephen, “Mock on, baby?”

Posted by Charles Warner at 10:06 AM | Comments (1) | Print |

digibandit at November 1, 2007 11:17 AM writes:

---