I forgot I had this site until earlier today. There are a couple old (2006) entries when I first started J-School.
The first three or four posts are actually from May. The others are from the last year or so.
Unless otherwise noted, all future entries are comin'atcha LIVE AND UNCENSORED
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Wilco al Fresco (5.14.08 - Downtown Lawrence)
(For more photos, see the original Jambase article)
Words & Images by: Nathan Rodriguez
Wilco :: 05.14.08 :: Downtown :: Lawrence, KS
The last time beer flowed on the streets of downtown Lawrence, Jayhawk fans were celebrating Mario's Miracle as Kansas went on to win the national championship. A little more than five weeks later, there was still cause for celebration: Wilco playing an outdoor show in the middle of downtown at 10th & New Hampshire.
There was no traditional "venue" but rather an open space that was converted into a scaled down Wakarusa - a Wilco-rusa, if you will. A local vendor set up shop slinging pizza slices, while a beer booth remained bustling throughout the evening.
The Retribution Gospel Choir opened. While not knowing anything about them, I quickly formed a general impression. A rock trio from Duluth, Minnesota wasn't exactly what I had in mind. The band played generally inoffensive, dirt-under-the-nails rock against a simple backbeat, sounding like a poor man's Crazy Horse. The crowd seemed ambivalent, with those close to the stage paying attention while others further away negotiated conversations over the music.
Words & Images by: Nathan Rodriguez
Wilco :: 05.14.08 :: Downtown :: Lawrence, KS
The last time beer flowed on the streets of downtown Lawrence, Jayhawk fans were celebrating Mario's Miracle as Kansas went on to win the national championship. A little more than five weeks later, there was still cause for celebration: Wilco playing an outdoor show in the middle of downtown at 10th & New Hampshire.
There was no traditional "venue" but rather an open space that was converted into a scaled down Wakarusa - a Wilco-rusa, if you will. A local vendor set up shop slinging pizza slices, while a beer booth remained bustling throughout the evening.
The Retribution Gospel Choir opened. While not knowing anything about them, I quickly formed a general impression. A rock trio from Duluth, Minnesota wasn't exactly what I had in mind. The band played generally inoffensive, dirt-under-the-nails rock against a simple backbeat, sounding like a poor man's Crazy Horse. The crowd seemed ambivalent, with those close to the stage paying attention while others further away negotiated conversations over the music.
After about 45 minutes, Retribution Gospel Choir left the stage. Concertgoers streamed in from down the block, quickly adding to the few hundred people inside. The weather was ideal, in the upper 60s with clear skies and a subsiding breeze.
Shortly after 8 p.m., Wilco assembled, selecting the buoyant, ambling rhythm of Sky Blue Sky's "Walken" to open the show. The band was on-point, drifting next into "Hummingbird" before skidding into the synth-heavy preamble of "Shot In The Arm." The techno intro was pierced by the clarity of Mikael Jorgensen's piano work, while drummer Glenn Kotche bid his time to enter the fray. A propulsive beat anchored the song, which ended with an impressive sonic convergence checkered with electronic scratching effects.
By now, most of the crowd had started to gather around the stage. It wound up being a comfortable mixture of Boomers, Gen-Xers with toddlers and college students entering summer vacation. But, in addition to the 2,000 or so paying concertgoers (read: suckers), there were at least another 500 or so onlookers on neighboring balconies and rooftops, lined up along the fence and scattered throughout a three-story parking garage that happened to offer a direct, elevated view of the stage from about 100 yards away.
The crystal-clear acoustics lent a warm, intimate feel to the show, and may have contributed to a more talkative Jeff Tweedy. A melancholy beginning to "At Least That's What You Said" met a stomping clash of percussion. Kotche was stellar, establishing a comfortable pace and chasing the guitar, accenting riffs with a clash of the cymbals. "You Are My Face" followed, with beautiful harmonies that vaguely recalled CSNY. The band let the song breathe, and the beginning was spacious enough to double-check that all six members were still onstage. As it progressed, a yin-yang was established with the spacious cohesion of the beginning spliced and alternated with slices of filthy rock. A plaintive piano solo was later joined by ethereal guitar work, signaling the close to the song, which finished with a smattering of cymbals.
Daylight began to fade, and Tweedy took notice of the hundreds of onlookers in the parking garage: "I see a lot of people illegally downloading this concert. Yeah, I'm talkin' about you guys! We're gonna pass around a hat. Yeah, we see you! You too, old timers!" He shifted his gaze and tone to the people directly in front of him, saying, "Actually, don't YOU all feel ripped off for paying?"
"Pot Kettle Black" brought a few cheers with the line "Every song is a comeback / Every moment is a little bit better," but proved to be a better set-up for "Impossible Germany." A highlight of the show, Kotche's no-frills drum work provided an accommodating platform for guitarist Nels Cline to venture off a bit. One by one, the rhythm guitars kicked in and all three locked in around a single theme. Cline then broke things apart with some ridiculous fretwork before building the song to a crescendo.
"Couldn't be a more perfect night," said Tweedy, "I think we got lucky!" He noted all the songs in the set were online requests, but said before "Say You Miss Me" that "only one person requested this next song, so now is your time to hit the Port-a-Pottys." He laughed it off, adding, "It's actually a great song" before he led them into the pleading rocker from Being There. After noting that Cline recently acquired a new guitar in Des Moines, "Handshake Drugs" allowed him to justify the purchase with some impressive work creating frayed edges around the beat for an apropos frazzled effect.
Tweedy commented that he "got run over by a mountain bike" while hiking along the Kansas River earlier in the day before the band eased into "Jesus, Etc." The tender, dimly textured tune featured the haunting chorus, "Tall buildings shake / Voices escape / Singing sad, sad songs." Cline took "Too Far Apart" to the next level with a frenzied solo. The song ended with Tweedy's distant vocals repeating, "Couldn't be any closer to you," several times. Nearing the end, he paused to cough, deliver the line and finished by adding a falsetto tongue-in-cheek assessment: "Nailed it."
"Theologians" offered an off-kilter romp, ending in a sea of reverb and transitioning to the gritty swagger of "I'm the Man Who Loves You." After another pick from the archives with "Kingpin," Wilco launched into the aptly-titled "Kicking Television," which inhabits Television's sonic realm with staccato guitars.
After taking a bow, the band reappeared for an encore that was nearly half as long as the set. "Misunderstood" found some soft vocals murmured from the crowd, after which Tweedy advised, "If we play 'Heavy Metal Drummer,' well, we played it last summer in Columbia, Missouri and a girl actually took her shirt off. I'm just sayin'..." He was greeted with a burst of booing for making a comparison to the University of Missouri, and responded with a knowing grin, "I don't know if you guys are like, rivals or anything."
While the main set was very good, the encore was flat-out great. "Passenger Side" was a welcome treat, but "California Stars" was a perfect fit for the evening, with relaxed pipe organ and light, honky-tonk flourishes adding texture to the gorgeous pop ballad. A short but stellar four minutes, it wound up being another highlight of the evening.
Tweedy then toyed with the crowd, "You have time for some more? We have nowhere to be 'til tomorrow night." An impassioned "Hate it Here" followed the "What am I gonna do" refrain, echoing John Lennon's pleading, stretched-thin vocals on "God."
Tweedy addressed the crowd again, saying, "We've got a curfew tonight, so no more talking!" They leapt into "Heavy Metal Drummer," which brought a frenzied response. It seemed a bit bass-heavy in the first half, but wound up being a solid rendition. After the song, Tweedy broke his promise, saying, "I'm really proud of you, Lawrence. No one took their shirt off. Don't resort to that sort of objectification. I'm proud of you. I mean, it would have been NICE, but I guess Columbia loves us more." The crowd booed heavily, as Tweedy dryly acknowledged, "I always say the wrong things." Within seconds he glanced up after apparently being flashed, announcing, "You really do love us! Oh my God! It's a 12-year old? Gonna get arrested for that, but thank you so much!"
The start-stop rocker "The Late Greats" was then paired with a tasty "Red-Eyed and Blue," but it was the final two songs of the night that were particularly noteworthy. "I Got You" was a slam-fest, with raucous power chords matched by the racket coming from the drum kit. Cline had a hot solo before breaking down to the drum roll from "Heavy Metal Drummer" and then hopping back to polish off "I Got You." They had a seamless transition to the show closer, "Hoodoo Voodoo." The lyrics seem a byproduct of free association but the groove is infectious enough to make it a moot point. The song gained intensity with inspired, fiery guitar bursts that led to a minute-long duel before converging and leading back to the chorus. The song and the show ended with a bang at the stroke of 10:30.
Wilco al fresco wound up being one of the more enjoyable outdoor concert experiences in recent memory. Their playing at times flirts with effortlessness but it is that relaxed and crisp sound that defines their talent. They are, to paraphrase Mike Greenberg of Mike & Mike in the Morning, "sneaky hot, like Tina Fey." Their greatness may not necessarily knock you out on impact but after awhile it becomes difficult to ignore and eventually becomes pretty damn impressive.
Shortly after 8 p.m., Wilco assembled, selecting the buoyant, ambling rhythm of Sky Blue Sky's "Walken" to open the show. The band was on-point, drifting next into "Hummingbird" before skidding into the synth-heavy preamble of "Shot In The Arm." The techno intro was pierced by the clarity of Mikael Jorgensen's piano work, while drummer Glenn Kotche bid his time to enter the fray. A propulsive beat anchored the song, which ended with an impressive sonic convergence checkered with electronic scratching effects.
By now, most of the crowd had started to gather around the stage. It wound up being a comfortable mixture of Boomers, Gen-Xers with toddlers and college students entering summer vacation. But, in addition to the 2,000 or so paying concertgoers (read: suckers), there were at least another 500 or so onlookers on neighboring balconies and rooftops, lined up along the fence and scattered throughout a three-story parking garage that happened to offer a direct, elevated view of the stage from about 100 yards away.
The crystal-clear acoustics lent a warm, intimate feel to the show, and may have contributed to a more talkative Jeff Tweedy. A melancholy beginning to "At Least That's What You Said" met a stomping clash of percussion. Kotche was stellar, establishing a comfortable pace and chasing the guitar, accenting riffs with a clash of the cymbals. "You Are My Face" followed, with beautiful harmonies that vaguely recalled CSNY. The band let the song breathe, and the beginning was spacious enough to double-check that all six members were still onstage. As it progressed, a yin-yang was established with the spacious cohesion of the beginning spliced and alternated with slices of filthy rock. A plaintive piano solo was later joined by ethereal guitar work, signaling the close to the song, which finished with a smattering of cymbals.
Daylight began to fade, and Tweedy took notice of the hundreds of onlookers in the parking garage: "I see a lot of people illegally downloading this concert. Yeah, I'm talkin' about you guys! We're gonna pass around a hat. Yeah, we see you! You too, old timers!" He shifted his gaze and tone to the people directly in front of him, saying, "Actually, don't YOU all feel ripped off for paying?"
"Pot Kettle Black" brought a few cheers with the line "Every song is a comeback / Every moment is a little bit better," but proved to be a better set-up for "Impossible Germany." A highlight of the show, Kotche's no-frills drum work provided an accommodating platform for guitarist Nels Cline to venture off a bit. One by one, the rhythm guitars kicked in and all three locked in around a single theme. Cline then broke things apart with some ridiculous fretwork before building the song to a crescendo.
"Couldn't be a more perfect night," said Tweedy, "I think we got lucky!" He noted all the songs in the set were online requests, but said before "Say You Miss Me" that "only one person requested this next song, so now is your time to hit the Port-a-Pottys." He laughed it off, adding, "It's actually a great song" before he led them into the pleading rocker from Being There. After noting that Cline recently acquired a new guitar in Des Moines, "Handshake Drugs" allowed him to justify the purchase with some impressive work creating frayed edges around the beat for an apropos frazzled effect.
Tweedy commented that he "got run over by a mountain bike" while hiking along the Kansas River earlier in the day before the band eased into "Jesus, Etc." The tender, dimly textured tune featured the haunting chorus, "Tall buildings shake / Voices escape / Singing sad, sad songs." Cline took "Too Far Apart" to the next level with a frenzied solo. The song ended with Tweedy's distant vocals repeating, "Couldn't be any closer to you," several times. Nearing the end, he paused to cough, deliver the line and finished by adding a falsetto tongue-in-cheek assessment: "Nailed it."
"Theologians" offered an off-kilter romp, ending in a sea of reverb and transitioning to the gritty swagger of "I'm the Man Who Loves You." After another pick from the archives with "Kingpin," Wilco launched into the aptly-titled "Kicking Television," which inhabits Television's sonic realm with staccato guitars.
After taking a bow, the band reappeared for an encore that was nearly half as long as the set. "Misunderstood" found some soft vocals murmured from the crowd, after which Tweedy advised, "If we play 'Heavy Metal Drummer,' well, we played it last summer in Columbia, Missouri and a girl actually took her shirt off. I'm just sayin'..." He was greeted with a burst of booing for making a comparison to the University of Missouri, and responded with a knowing grin, "I don't know if you guys are like, rivals or anything."
While the main set was very good, the encore was flat-out great. "Passenger Side" was a welcome treat, but "California Stars" was a perfect fit for the evening, with relaxed pipe organ and light, honky-tonk flourishes adding texture to the gorgeous pop ballad. A short but stellar four minutes, it wound up being another highlight of the evening.
Tweedy then toyed with the crowd, "You have time for some more? We have nowhere to be 'til tomorrow night." An impassioned "Hate it Here" followed the "What am I gonna do" refrain, echoing John Lennon's pleading, stretched-thin vocals on "God."
Tweedy addressed the crowd again, saying, "We've got a curfew tonight, so no more talking!" They leapt into "Heavy Metal Drummer," which brought a frenzied response. It seemed a bit bass-heavy in the first half, but wound up being a solid rendition. After the song, Tweedy broke his promise, saying, "I'm really proud of you, Lawrence. No one took their shirt off. Don't resort to that sort of objectification. I'm proud of you. I mean, it would have been NICE, but I guess Columbia loves us more." The crowd booed heavily, as Tweedy dryly acknowledged, "I always say the wrong things." Within seconds he glanced up after apparently being flashed, announcing, "You really do love us! Oh my God! It's a 12-year old? Gonna get arrested for that, but thank you so much!"
The start-stop rocker "The Late Greats" was then paired with a tasty "Red-Eyed and Blue," but it was the final two songs of the night that were particularly noteworthy. "I Got You" was a slam-fest, with raucous power chords matched by the racket coming from the drum kit. Cline had a hot solo before breaking down to the drum roll from "Heavy Metal Drummer" and then hopping back to polish off "I Got You." They had a seamless transition to the show closer, "Hoodoo Voodoo." The lyrics seem a byproduct of free association but the groove is infectious enough to make it a moot point. The song gained intensity with inspired, fiery guitar bursts that led to a minute-long duel before converging and leading back to the chorus. The song and the show ended with a bang at the stroke of 10:30.
Wilco al fresco wound up being one of the more enjoyable outdoor concert experiences in recent memory. Their playing at times flirts with effortlessness but it is that relaxed and crisp sound that defines their talent. They are, to paraphrase Mike Greenberg of Mike & Mike in the Morning, "sneaky hot, like Tina Fey." Their greatness may not necessarily knock you out on impact but after awhile it becomes difficult to ignore and eventually becomes pretty damn impressive.
Finding God at Gunpoint
Early in the morning, you gather the family to attend worship services. You put on your best attire, hop in the car and head down the road.
Approaching an intersection, a pair of fatigue-clad individuals armed with automatic rifles signal you to stop. They size you up, ask a few questions with a foreign accent, and finally wave you past. But not before handing you a coin.
Unfortunately, this coin has no monetary value.
One side reads “Where Will You Spend Eternity?” The other side quotes John 3:16.
No, this isn’t a case of overly aggressive Jehovah’s Witnesses terrorizing the townies. It happened in Iraq.
As the McClatchy papers reported, “The U.S. military has confirmed that a Marine in Fallujah passed out coins with a Gospel verse on them to Sunni Muslims.” The Marine was removed from duty and reassigned, and the incident is currently being investigated.
Naturally, McClatchy continued, the act angered many residents who were already displeased with the US “occupiers,” who felt that the troops were now becoming “Christian missionaries.”
This isn’t good.
In no way should this be construed as a commentary on the armed forces, or even the Iraq war itself. Candidly, a college buddy was a Marine involved in the fierce early battles in Fallujah.
No, what matters here is that this Marine was an ambassador of the United States who interacted with everyday civilians.
That this happened at a military checkpoint and not a street corner is disturbing because it is the apotheosis of a “captive audience.” If someone proselytizes in an open street, you generally have the option of “tuning him out” and ambling past. You don’t have that luxury at a mandatory stop.
For now, we’ll assume it was one individual behind the engraved religious coin operation. (I may revisit the issue with a “conshpeeerashy” angle after fashioning my tin foil hat). The point is this:
Dispensing oppositional religious coins at military checkpoints was at best a misguided altruistic act, and hopefully a limited one as well. But the damage to the image and credibility of the U.S. as a “hands-off” peacekeeping force is disconcerting to any reasonable observer.
Yet here the McClatchey story is, on page A16.
Al-Qaeda’s PR wing could not have fabricated a better anecdote. This is precisely the type of catalyzing event that generates interest in the Insurgency.
Many Americans are proud of their religious tradition, and hold it dearly. But even the math (five times a day versus once a week) lends credence to the suggestion that religion plays just as large a role, if not more so, in the daily lives of many Iraqis.
My hunch is many Americans would not view Jehovah’s Witnesses in the same light if they were suddenly armed while making their conversion pitch. If, after more than five years of daily interaction, they leaned into car windows with a finger on a trigger while making a religious pitch, some people might become resentful. On the other side of the coin and on the other side of the globe, we have a lone U.S. soldier clouding his assigned mission with actions more fit for a Christian soldier during the Crusades. Let’s just hope that the residents of Fallujah are not as predisposed to violence as a solution as we seem to be.
Stories like these on page A16 go a long way in explaining why the stories on page A1 read the way they do.
Approaching an intersection, a pair of fatigue-clad individuals armed with automatic rifles signal you to stop. They size you up, ask a few questions with a foreign accent, and finally wave you past. But not before handing you a coin.
Unfortunately, this coin has no monetary value.
One side reads “Where Will You Spend Eternity?” The other side quotes John 3:16.
No, this isn’t a case of overly aggressive Jehovah’s Witnesses terrorizing the townies. It happened in Iraq.
As the McClatchy papers reported, “The U.S. military has confirmed that a Marine in Fallujah passed out coins with a Gospel verse on them to Sunni Muslims.” The Marine was removed from duty and reassigned, and the incident is currently being investigated.
Naturally, McClatchy continued, the act angered many residents who were already displeased with the US “occupiers,” who felt that the troops were now becoming “Christian missionaries.”
This isn’t good.
In no way should this be construed as a commentary on the armed forces, or even the Iraq war itself. Candidly, a college buddy was a Marine involved in the fierce early battles in Fallujah.
No, what matters here is that this Marine was an ambassador of the United States who interacted with everyday civilians.
That this happened at a military checkpoint and not a street corner is disturbing because it is the apotheosis of a “captive audience.” If someone proselytizes in an open street, you generally have the option of “tuning him out” and ambling past. You don’t have that luxury at a mandatory stop.
For now, we’ll assume it was one individual behind the engraved religious coin operation. (I may revisit the issue with a “conshpeeerashy” angle after fashioning my tin foil hat). The point is this:
Dispensing oppositional religious coins at military checkpoints was at best a misguided altruistic act, and hopefully a limited one as well. But the damage to the image and credibility of the U.S. as a “hands-off” peacekeeping force is disconcerting to any reasonable observer.
Yet here the McClatchey story is, on page A16.
Al-Qaeda’s PR wing could not have fabricated a better anecdote. This is precisely the type of catalyzing event that generates interest in the Insurgency.
Many Americans are proud of their religious tradition, and hold it dearly. But even the math (five times a day versus once a week) lends credence to the suggestion that religion plays just as large a role, if not more so, in the daily lives of many Iraqis.
My hunch is many Americans would not view Jehovah’s Witnesses in the same light if they were suddenly armed while making their conversion pitch. If, after more than five years of daily interaction, they leaned into car windows with a finger on a trigger while making a religious pitch, some people might become resentful. On the other side of the coin and on the other side of the globe, we have a lone U.S. soldier clouding his assigned mission with actions more fit for a Christian soldier during the Crusades. Let’s just hope that the residents of Fallujah are not as predisposed to violence as a solution as we seem to be.
Stories like these on page A16 go a long way in explaining why the stories on page A1 read the way they do.
A few photos from Colorado
Photo taken from the Buena Vista campsite
Growing among the rocks on Ruby Mtn. outside of Buena Vista
(at our campsite)
Between Avon and Leadville
Notes on a Scandal
Everything is bigger in Texas, including the non-stories.
Naturally, the headline “Report: Arthur’s Grades Altered” on KUSports.com gave many Jayhawk fans mild arrhythmia.
The story is this: a Dallas TV station, in performing its solemn duty as a watchdog, talked to a local algebra teacher, Winford Ashmore, who claimed Darrell Arthur had his grades altered by the principal and basketball coach to ensure his eligibility. This is nothing new for Oak Cliff high school, as it has forfeited games in the past few years due to academic irregularities.
The Dallas station, WFAA, clearly had a well-documented, polished news package. But it lacked a news peg.
So it got a little creative, played loose with the facts and raised all-in. The video montage evolves from shots of Arthur playing at Oak Cliff to Arthur soaring for alley-oops in a Jayhawk uniform and hoisting the national championship trophy. WFAA closed the broadcast with a statement dripping with suggestion: “the NCAA rules state that if a player is ineligible, a penalty can be forfeiture of any and all games.”
Bravo. I nearly had to change my pants.
Until, that is, I regained my senses. The one answer that seemingly devastates the story is that the NCAA declared Arthur eligible to play for KU. It is not the responsibility of any collegiate coach to perform his own investigation to double-check the NCAA. As long as there are no fingerprints on this story from the KU athletic department, it will eventually waft into the ether.
But it does bring up an interesting topic: Is it really that bad that Arthur had a little help on the way to achieving his dream?
Now before you saddle up the high horse, I’m not advocating special treatment for anyone. I certainly don’t feel that all athletes should be given a free ride due to their ability outside of the classroom.
But we’re talking about a one-in-a-million type of talent in this situation. Would you have denied Mozart a spot in music class because he was borderline in home ec? Face it, you don’t want Mozart serving you crème brulee any more than you want Darrell Arthur working a shuttle launch at Cape Canaveral.
So what would have happened if Arthur’s principal and coach had not intervened? Winford Ashmore would have gotten his jollies by making Arthur hate algebra more than anything on earth. Arthur would have lost the one thing that mattered, the one thing at which he was unparalleled. He may have persevered and developed into a well rounded student athlete. Or he may have become frustrated, withdrawn, and yet another depressing story about wasted talent.
But we’re starting to get off-track.
What’s surprising about this grade-changing scandal is that it’s actually called a scandal in Dallas. Dallas, Texas. Home of 40,000 seat stadiums that are virtual shrines to pubescent athletics.
There is something fundamentally troubling about sports culture today. 8th graders are now declaring their allegiances to colleges. O.J. Mayo appears to have more or less struck an agreement with an agent before half-heartedly skipping off to USC for a year. The game has gotten so big, the paychecks so large, that “the next best thing” seems to be getting younger and younger each year. There’s too much money involved for there not to be corruption.
Arthur’s story isn’t nearly as dispiriting as Mayo’s. With Mayo, it was about money, and it was about 40-year old men stalking teenage boys in gymnasiums for 15% of their future income.
It looks now like Arthur had some people in his corner, in that his coach and his principal—either for him or for the school—wanted to see him succeed in that at which he excelled. They got two state championships in the process, but part of me is naïve enough to believe that they also wanted to see doors remain open for him at the next level.
Whatever the case may be it is unfortunate that the story comes out now. Winford Ashmore should have said something about Arthur’s eligibility issues before he left Oak Cliff. Instead, he decides to wait until Arthur declares for the NBA? Very odd.
Until you consider that it’s Sweeps Week.
Then it begins to make a little more sense. WFAA was hurting for a story, and finally had some semblance of a news peg with KU winning the championship. Ashmore (putting on my psychologist cap here) may have been bitter about devoting his life to the quadratic equation, as Arthur, who can put a ball in a basket, will become a multi-millionaire in a couple weeks. Who knows?
Everything is bigger in Texas, especially the non-stories. This non-story came during baseball season, which was enough to make me lose half a morning tilting at windmills.
Naturally, the headline “Report: Arthur’s Grades Altered” on KUSports.com gave many Jayhawk fans mild arrhythmia.
The story is this: a Dallas TV station, in performing its solemn duty as a watchdog, talked to a local algebra teacher, Winford Ashmore, who claimed Darrell Arthur had his grades altered by the principal and basketball coach to ensure his eligibility. This is nothing new for Oak Cliff high school, as it has forfeited games in the past few years due to academic irregularities.
The Dallas station, WFAA, clearly had a well-documented, polished news package. But it lacked a news peg.
So it got a little creative, played loose with the facts and raised all-in. The video montage evolves from shots of Arthur playing at Oak Cliff to Arthur soaring for alley-oops in a Jayhawk uniform and hoisting the national championship trophy. WFAA closed the broadcast with a statement dripping with suggestion: “the NCAA rules state that if a player is ineligible, a penalty can be forfeiture of any and all games.”
Bravo. I nearly had to change my pants.
Until, that is, I regained my senses. The one answer that seemingly devastates the story is that the NCAA declared Arthur eligible to play for KU. It is not the responsibility of any collegiate coach to perform his own investigation to double-check the NCAA. As long as there are no fingerprints on this story from the KU athletic department, it will eventually waft into the ether.
But it does bring up an interesting topic: Is it really that bad that Arthur had a little help on the way to achieving his dream?
Now before you saddle up the high horse, I’m not advocating special treatment for anyone. I certainly don’t feel that all athletes should be given a free ride due to their ability outside of the classroom.
But we’re talking about a one-in-a-million type of talent in this situation. Would you have denied Mozart a spot in music class because he was borderline in home ec? Face it, you don’t want Mozart serving you crème brulee any more than you want Darrell Arthur working a shuttle launch at Cape Canaveral.
So what would have happened if Arthur’s principal and coach had not intervened? Winford Ashmore would have gotten his jollies by making Arthur hate algebra more than anything on earth. Arthur would have lost the one thing that mattered, the one thing at which he was unparalleled. He may have persevered and developed into a well rounded student athlete. Or he may have become frustrated, withdrawn, and yet another depressing story about wasted talent.
But we’re starting to get off-track.
What’s surprising about this grade-changing scandal is that it’s actually called a scandal in Dallas. Dallas, Texas. Home of 40,000 seat stadiums that are virtual shrines to pubescent athletics.
There is something fundamentally troubling about sports culture today. 8th graders are now declaring their allegiances to colleges. O.J. Mayo appears to have more or less struck an agreement with an agent before half-heartedly skipping off to USC for a year. The game has gotten so big, the paychecks so large, that “the next best thing” seems to be getting younger and younger each year. There’s too much money involved for there not to be corruption.
Arthur’s story isn’t nearly as dispiriting as Mayo’s. With Mayo, it was about money, and it was about 40-year old men stalking teenage boys in gymnasiums for 15% of their future income.
It looks now like Arthur had some people in his corner, in that his coach and his principal—either for him or for the school—wanted to see him succeed in that at which he excelled. They got two state championships in the process, but part of me is naïve enough to believe that they also wanted to see doors remain open for him at the next level.
Whatever the case may be it is unfortunate that the story comes out now. Winford Ashmore should have said something about Arthur’s eligibility issues before he left Oak Cliff. Instead, he decides to wait until Arthur declares for the NBA? Very odd.
Until you consider that it’s Sweeps Week.
Then it begins to make a little more sense. WFAA was hurting for a story, and finally had some semblance of a news peg with KU winning the championship. Ashmore (putting on my psychologist cap here) may have been bitter about devoting his life to the quadratic equation, as Arthur, who can put a ball in a basket, will become a multi-millionaire in a couple weeks. Who knows?
Everything is bigger in Texas, especially the non-stories. This non-story came during baseball season, which was enough to make me lose half a morning tilting at windmills.
The Bittersweet Symphony of YouTube Politics
“Obama said what? Why would he say something like that?”
Now I’m bitter.
The last few election cycles have illuminated and exacerbated political gaffes like never before. In the past, politicians were able to speak more freely in closed-door fundraisers, assured that their comments would only fall upon favorable ears.
It seems that the “Macaca” incident may have only been the first of many YouTube blunders in American politics. Had George Allen’s comment been reported in print or relayed second-hand, it would have quickly evaporated into the ether. But in the instant-gratification era of YouTube politics, his invective reigns in perpetuity and – with a click of the mouse - shadows his legacy.
YouTube offers the (voting) public an entirely new source of information: politicians unfiltered through the lens of the journalist-as-middleman. With unambiguous clarity, the nuances and context of an event resonate with greater immediacy and intimacy. Everyone now has the opportunity to personally evaluate tone, delivery, facial expressions, and crowd response. And this is why Allen’s racially-charged comments clung to his candidacy: they were not fleeting, but deliberately delivered, staring directly at the camera, before mockingly remarking, “Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia,” which in a sense removed any confusion about his intent.
Fast-forward to the current kerfuffle over Obama’s “bitter” comment. In less than 48 hours, a search for “Obama Bitter” on YouTube yields 482 videos—or a new one every six minutes--which have collectively been viewed millions of times. Naturally, many videos have been edited to either increase or reduce context, depending on the political proclivities of the person uploading the feed.
It is here that many mainstream media outlets have shirked responsibility. Most television stations may play a sound bite of a sentence or two, and close with the remark that the “bitter” comment could hurt Obama’s election hopes. Politico’s Carrie Brown has an article entitled “Barack Obama’s Flip Side Revealed,” a moniker better suited for the checkout aisle of a grocery store rather than a respected site of political information. Even the renowned commentator George Will devoted an article to what he terms “Obama’s Bitter Liberalism.”
The problem is not that members of the media are reporting the issue, but rather the lackadaisical and pedestrian method in which it is discussed. Journalists try to deliver “the truth and nothing but the truth so help them, God,” but neglect the all-important “full truth,” which begs the question:
Do we even concern ourselves with providing context anymore?
It seems that the emphasis on sharpening a good “news peg,” against a deadline has dulled our collective sensibility and responsibility as journalists. We report the headline or the sound bite, and it is looped ad nauseam rather than opening the door for a more in-depth discussion.
The infamous line from Obama’s fundraising speech in San Francisco that appears in nearly every article is, “It is not surprising then they get bitter.” Unfortunately, almost across the board, there is little explanation of the word “then” in the sentence. “Then” signifies the extension of a previous line of thought. To wit, Obama discussed the problems of a stagnant economy and decades of broken promises at length, before offering the afterthought that “it’s not surprising then they get bitter.”
Certainly, some of the more responsible political commentators have bothered to do their homework and investigate the context of Obama’s utterance. But far too many are content to target the easy story, the headline, the sound bite—and in doing so, boldly flirt with journalistic negligence.
In an era where technology enhances convenience, pajama-clad bloggers and anonymous message board users amplify the shortcomings (spurred by budget cuts) of traditional media outlets. An arm’s-length detachment from the process of newsmaking often allows for a more “meta” or nuanced interpretation of both the event, and the reporting of the event. Traditional avenues for disseminating information have changed, and with YouTube and online press releases, the playing field has leveled for credentialed and non-credentialed members of the media.
What many people are coming to realize is that this leveling of the journalistic playing field has resulted in bloggers getting the story “right” at a pace that rivals—and even eclipses—that of more traditional outlets. The challenge for established media, simply put, is to “step its game up.” It no longer suffices to parrot back the headline from a press release. It is no longer acceptable to target the easy story instead of the thoughtful one. You can still get a “passing” grade for handing in such “work” by the end of the day – but it translates into readers and viewers “passing” by your work to get to the heart of the matter. What is at stake is no less than the survival of news media as we know it today.
With the “Macaca” gaffe in 2006, bloggers created such a cacophony that mainstream media was essentially coerced into reporting the event. With increasing budget cutbacks, members of the traditional press would do themselves a favor by reducing their recalcitrance against mining non-traditional sources of information.
By digging a little deeper, visiting YouTube, or reading a blog or two, many mainstream political pundits could have gotten the full story behind Obama’s “bitter” comment correct on the first draft. If Obama’s supposed gaffe did have overtones of being “out of touch,” those overtones unfortunately characterize those reporting the event.
It is not surprising, then that I am bitter.
Now I’m bitter.
The last few election cycles have illuminated and exacerbated political gaffes like never before. In the past, politicians were able to speak more freely in closed-door fundraisers, assured that their comments would only fall upon favorable ears.
It seems that the “Macaca” incident may have only been the first of many YouTube blunders in American politics. Had George Allen’s comment been reported in print or relayed second-hand, it would have quickly evaporated into the ether. But in the instant-gratification era of YouTube politics, his invective reigns in perpetuity and – with a click of the mouse - shadows his legacy.
YouTube offers the (voting) public an entirely new source of information: politicians unfiltered through the lens of the journalist-as-middleman. With unambiguous clarity, the nuances and context of an event resonate with greater immediacy and intimacy. Everyone now has the opportunity to personally evaluate tone, delivery, facial expressions, and crowd response. And this is why Allen’s racially-charged comments clung to his candidacy: they were not fleeting, but deliberately delivered, staring directly at the camera, before mockingly remarking, “Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia,” which in a sense removed any confusion about his intent.
Fast-forward to the current kerfuffle over Obama’s “bitter” comment. In less than 48 hours, a search for “Obama Bitter” on YouTube yields 482 videos—or a new one every six minutes--which have collectively been viewed millions of times. Naturally, many videos have been edited to either increase or reduce context, depending on the political proclivities of the person uploading the feed.
It is here that many mainstream media outlets have shirked responsibility. Most television stations may play a sound bite of a sentence or two, and close with the remark that the “bitter” comment could hurt Obama’s election hopes. Politico’s Carrie Brown has an article entitled “Barack Obama’s Flip Side Revealed,” a moniker better suited for the checkout aisle of a grocery store rather than a respected site of political information. Even the renowned commentator George Will devoted an article to what he terms “Obama’s Bitter Liberalism.”
The problem is not that members of the media are reporting the issue, but rather the lackadaisical and pedestrian method in which it is discussed. Journalists try to deliver “the truth and nothing but the truth so help them, God,” but neglect the all-important “full truth,” which begs the question:
Do we even concern ourselves with providing context anymore?
It seems that the emphasis on sharpening a good “news peg,” against a deadline has dulled our collective sensibility and responsibility as journalists. We report the headline or the sound bite, and it is looped ad nauseam rather than opening the door for a more in-depth discussion.
The infamous line from Obama’s fundraising speech in San Francisco that appears in nearly every article is, “It is not surprising then they get bitter.” Unfortunately, almost across the board, there is little explanation of the word “then” in the sentence. “Then” signifies the extension of a previous line of thought. To wit, Obama discussed the problems of a stagnant economy and decades of broken promises at length, before offering the afterthought that “it’s not surprising then they get bitter.”
Certainly, some of the more responsible political commentators have bothered to do their homework and investigate the context of Obama’s utterance. But far too many are content to target the easy story, the headline, the sound bite—and in doing so, boldly flirt with journalistic negligence.
In an era where technology enhances convenience, pajama-clad bloggers and anonymous message board users amplify the shortcomings (spurred by budget cuts) of traditional media outlets. An arm’s-length detachment from the process of newsmaking often allows for a more “meta” or nuanced interpretation of both the event, and the reporting of the event. Traditional avenues for disseminating information have changed, and with YouTube and online press releases, the playing field has leveled for credentialed and non-credentialed members of the media.
What many people are coming to realize is that this leveling of the journalistic playing field has resulted in bloggers getting the story “right” at a pace that rivals—and even eclipses—that of more traditional outlets. The challenge for established media, simply put, is to “step its game up.” It no longer suffices to parrot back the headline from a press release. It is no longer acceptable to target the easy story instead of the thoughtful one. You can still get a “passing” grade for handing in such “work” by the end of the day – but it translates into readers and viewers “passing” by your work to get to the heart of the matter. What is at stake is no less than the survival of news media as we know it today.
With the “Macaca” gaffe in 2006, bloggers created such a cacophony that mainstream media was essentially coerced into reporting the event. With increasing budget cutbacks, members of the traditional press would do themselves a favor by reducing their recalcitrance against mining non-traditional sources of information.
By digging a little deeper, visiting YouTube, or reading a blog or two, many mainstream political pundits could have gotten the full story behind Obama’s “bitter” comment correct on the first draft. If Obama’s supposed gaffe did have overtones of being “out of touch,” those overtones unfortunately characterize those reporting the event.
It is not surprising, then that I am bitter.
I Saw Samuel L. Jackson Today
I saw Samuel L. Jackson today on 42nd Street, posing for a picture with a fan. It looked like they were in front of a theater – probably promoting an upcoming movie.
He was smiling, seemed happy enough to be there. I’m not sure who is taking the picture, but across from him are five or six people armed with low-grade digital cameras.
It’s too late to go around the photogs. I’m in their midst with a throng of pedestrians tailing me. I can’t just “stop short” and turn around. I make a truly half-assed attempt to duck and turn around mid-stride, my face contorted into an apologetic “my bad.”
They don’t seem to notice or care and were focused intently on the famous actor five feet in front of them.
I decide to look back at Samuel L. Jackson for a couple more seconds, you know, to drink in the moment. It was definitely him. Pretty cool.
It was about that time that I noticed he wasn’t talking to the person requesting the photo. And there was a really short line of people there, considering the circumstances. He also hadn’t moved much, if at all during the fifteen seconds this all transpired.
I glance up to see the name of the theater. It was then that I considered wearing glasses again, as the name “Madame Tussauds Museum of Wax” appeared overhead. I took a deep breath, pondering my own mental faculties and curious if I was going to tell anyone about this.
He was smiling, seemed happy enough to be there. I’m not sure who is taking the picture, but across from him are five or six people armed with low-grade digital cameras.
It’s too late to go around the photogs. I’m in their midst with a throng of pedestrians tailing me. I can’t just “stop short” and turn around. I make a truly half-assed attempt to duck and turn around mid-stride, my face contorted into an apologetic “my bad.”
They don’t seem to notice or care and were focused intently on the famous actor five feet in front of them.
I decide to look back at Samuel L. Jackson for a couple more seconds, you know, to drink in the moment. It was definitely him. Pretty cool.
It was about that time that I noticed he wasn’t talking to the person requesting the photo. And there was a really short line of people there, considering the circumstances. He also hadn’t moved much, if at all during the fifteen seconds this all transpired.
I glance up to see the name of the theater. It was then that I considered wearing glasses again, as the name “Madame Tussauds Museum of Wax” appeared overhead. I took a deep breath, pondering my own mental faculties and curious if I was going to tell anyone about this.
Blogs are the New Hip-Hop
Blogs are the new hip-hop
Blogs are to media today what hip-hop was to music twenty years ago: misunderstood, edgy, a blend of old and new. But beyond merely confusing and frightening the uninitiated, blogs and hip-hop seem to share so many commonalities that – hey, indulge me here – it’s worth reviewing.
There are certain things you can dismiss with good reason: Mike Tyson’s latest statement that he’s a changed man, for example. But very few things are dismissed out of hand as quickly as blogs and hip-hop. These uninformed repudiations generally come from the “old guard,” or someone with a vested interest in seeing the “fad” fail. “It’s not even real music.” “Blogs infringe on true journalism.” Without any further investigation, the mediums are castigated and discarded as substandard.
Both blogs and hip-hop tend to sample previously produced material. A DJ may select a few seconds of a beat, loop it and toss some effects on top, but the rapper usually adds completely new lyrics to complement the selection. A blogger generally utilizes the beat of the beat writer: the highlight of a story, supplementing that with their own interpretation or commentary. At the same time, blogs and hip-hop can be completely original creations that don’t redeploy any previously-produced work.
Both blogs and hip-hop are almost assumed to be static monoliths, when the reality is far more indefinable and fluid. The mediums are being stretched, tested, and at times co-opted. They are far from a singular entity. Within hip-hop, there are different rap styles – “conscious” and “gangsta” among them – as well as a variety of genres sampled, from classical to funk, soul and rock and roll. Blogs may be political, spiritual, sports-related or personal. They each cover more ground and specialize in more areas than detractors care to admit or realize.
Then there’s style. For bloggers and rappers the list is similar: style, flow, sense of rhythm and humor are all desirable commodities. One blogger actually fancies himself as the blogosphere’s Jay-Z, quoting a Hova tune: “I lead the league in at least six statistical categories – best flow, most consistent, realest stories, most charisma, I set the most trends and my interviews are hotter.” There’s something to be said for having a bit of swagger. Anyone can blog and anyone can rap, but not everyone is worth listening to.
Both blogs and hip-hop are slightly ahead of the curve in some respects. The Journal of Black Studies and a number of other sources have argued that rappers had essentially predicted--or at least issued warnings prior to--the Los Angeles riots of 1992. Similarly, some in academia argue that bloggers often act as tipsters and trendsetters, lighting the way for mainstream media to follow.
Hip-hop was born in braggadocio: rappers participated in battles with peers in front of an audience. Part of the attraction is improvising (or at least rehearsing) a variety of put-downs to enhance one’s stature at the expense of another. At stake is perceived status and respect. A motivation for entering either a rap battle or the blogosphere may be a simple desire to be heard and make the statement “I’m here.” Vitriolic ad hominem attacks are expected on many blogs– the content of which isn’t too far off the mark from what might be said in any run of the mill rap battle.
Hip-hop is more than music. It is a social and cultural phenomenon. Is blogging more than just the blogs themselves? It’s probably too early to say, given the amorphous nature of the blogosphere. Then again, the Pajamas Media crew may be the start of the online commuter revolution.
It took a solid decade or so before the majority of mainstream listeners accepted hip-hop as more than just a fad. Some of the biggest names in the established media have claimed that blogs have already enjoyed their day in the sun, and will soon fall by the wayside. Perhaps it will take a few more “slip-ups” of the mainstream media reported by bloggers before the blogosphere becomes a generally-accepted branch of the media.
One final note about the future of the blogosphere, as seen through the historical lens of hip-hop. Hip-hop—or at least the songs on the radio—was co-opted by the music industry a couple decades ago. As soon as it became evident that albums would be purchased, industry executives wanted in. Clothing styles and slang went mainstream. A similar fate may await blogs. Leading bloggers are basking in the newfound glow of acceptance, and some vanguards of the old media brigade are now offering a seat at the table. Losing this “outsider” status could rob some blogs of their soul. Just as Eminem’s well-worn claim that nobody respects him can sound hollow after selling tens of millions of albums, the personal and intimate nature of blogs may also begin to evaporate after corporate interests filter and sanitize the thoughts of the author. Or, maybe they won’t censor blogs in the future at all – they can just slap on a warning label instead. I’ve got an idea for one: “Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics.”
Blogs are to media today what hip-hop was to music twenty years ago: misunderstood, edgy, a blend of old and new. But beyond merely confusing and frightening the uninitiated, blogs and hip-hop seem to share so many commonalities that – hey, indulge me here – it’s worth reviewing.
There are certain things you can dismiss with good reason: Mike Tyson’s latest statement that he’s a changed man, for example. But very few things are dismissed out of hand as quickly as blogs and hip-hop. These uninformed repudiations generally come from the “old guard,” or someone with a vested interest in seeing the “fad” fail. “It’s not even real music.” “Blogs infringe on true journalism.” Without any further investigation, the mediums are castigated and discarded as substandard.
Both blogs and hip-hop tend to sample previously produced material. A DJ may select a few seconds of a beat, loop it and toss some effects on top, but the rapper usually adds completely new lyrics to complement the selection. A blogger generally utilizes the beat of the beat writer: the highlight of a story, supplementing that with their own interpretation or commentary. At the same time, blogs and hip-hop can be completely original creations that don’t redeploy any previously-produced work.
Both blogs and hip-hop are almost assumed to be static monoliths, when the reality is far more indefinable and fluid. The mediums are being stretched, tested, and at times co-opted. They are far from a singular entity. Within hip-hop, there are different rap styles – “conscious” and “gangsta” among them – as well as a variety of genres sampled, from classical to funk, soul and rock and roll. Blogs may be political, spiritual, sports-related or personal. They each cover more ground and specialize in more areas than detractors care to admit or realize.
Then there’s style. For bloggers and rappers the list is similar: style, flow, sense of rhythm and humor are all desirable commodities. One blogger actually fancies himself as the blogosphere’s Jay-Z, quoting a Hova tune: “I lead the league in at least six statistical categories – best flow, most consistent, realest stories, most charisma, I set the most trends and my interviews are hotter.” There’s something to be said for having a bit of swagger. Anyone can blog and anyone can rap, but not everyone is worth listening to.
Both blogs and hip-hop are slightly ahead of the curve in some respects. The Journal of Black Studies and a number of other sources have argued that rappers had essentially predicted--or at least issued warnings prior to--the Los Angeles riots of 1992. Similarly, some in academia argue that bloggers often act as tipsters and trendsetters, lighting the way for mainstream media to follow.
Hip-hop was born in braggadocio: rappers participated in battles with peers in front of an audience. Part of the attraction is improvising (or at least rehearsing) a variety of put-downs to enhance one’s stature at the expense of another. At stake is perceived status and respect. A motivation for entering either a rap battle or the blogosphere may be a simple desire to be heard and make the statement “I’m here.” Vitriolic ad hominem attacks are expected on many blogs– the content of which isn’t too far off the mark from what might be said in any run of the mill rap battle.
Hip-hop is more than music. It is a social and cultural phenomenon. Is blogging more than just the blogs themselves? It’s probably too early to say, given the amorphous nature of the blogosphere. Then again, the Pajamas Media crew may be the start of the online commuter revolution.
It took a solid decade or so before the majority of mainstream listeners accepted hip-hop as more than just a fad. Some of the biggest names in the established media have claimed that blogs have already enjoyed their day in the sun, and will soon fall by the wayside. Perhaps it will take a few more “slip-ups” of the mainstream media reported by bloggers before the blogosphere becomes a generally-accepted branch of the media.
One final note about the future of the blogosphere, as seen through the historical lens of hip-hop. Hip-hop—or at least the songs on the radio—was co-opted by the music industry a couple decades ago. As soon as it became evident that albums would be purchased, industry executives wanted in. Clothing styles and slang went mainstream. A similar fate may await blogs. Leading bloggers are basking in the newfound glow of acceptance, and some vanguards of the old media brigade are now offering a seat at the table. Losing this “outsider” status could rob some blogs of their soul. Just as Eminem’s well-worn claim that nobody respects him can sound hollow after selling tens of millions of albums, the personal and intimate nature of blogs may also begin to evaporate after corporate interests filter and sanitize the thoughts of the author. Or, maybe they won’t censor blogs in the future at all – they can just slap on a warning label instead. I’ve got an idea for one: “Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics.”
I Pity the Fool!
Only fools believe they have all the right answers.
A more pragmatic approach to dealing with any problem is to either consult an expert or read up on it before you shoot from the hip and land in arrears.
It’s interesting to watch—in a twisted social experiment sort of way—how some major newspapers are tilting at the online windmill in an attempt to relive the glory days of the industry.
“Maybe we should charge for online access?” they think. Think again. Kids these days don’t like paying when they don’t have to. It may have become cliché to claim that the “younger generation” doesn’t read newspapers. That doesn’t mean they aren’t tuned in, they’re simply going elsewhere. And, chances are, they get their information free of charge. Making the decision to charge online readers for content won’t win many eyeballs, let alone the hearts and minds that sustain online communities.
Instead of staring backwards at the past for answers, or shaking down Generation X and Next for loose change—that’s like trying to squeeze blood from a turnip—progressive or fiscally-minded news organizations should look at some successful online companies for answers.
Jambase is one example of an online company that "made it big." It was started from scratch in 1998 and now has more than half a million unique visitors a month, and around 2 million page views each week. The site is free of charge for all users, and offers a variety of ways to personalize the site for each visitor. Despite not charging anyone for content, the company is still making decent coin: good enough for a little over a dozen people to work full-time in a downtown San Francisco office.
Online monetization isn’t really that complicated. More clicks equal more ad revenue. That’s it.
The difference between what Jambase experienced and what the newspaper industry is facing is significant: newspapers actually have a head start with product placement. Instead of thinking about “print” and “online” like oil and water, news organizations should embrace online evolution as a natural outgrowth of the industry. Get the smart folks at the company in the same room, brainstorm about hyperlocalism for a solid hour or two, and then get crackin’ on the website: if you build it, they will come.
A defeatist attitude about progress accomplishes nothing. Maybe a little Churchill will inspire, then: “The pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”
Online journalism today isn’t just about bloggers sitting in their parents’ basement, doing haphazard drive-by’s on mainstream media. It’s about scratching an itch that no one else can quite reach.
It’s not that the pajamas media is any better or different than the printed word folks either. They just happened to figure it out first...out of necessity.
Newspapers that are thinking of charging for online content are inhabiting a fool’s paradise. The past is gone, and it took its economic model back with it.
Mr. T may be known for saying "I pity the fool," but he also said "It takes a smart guy to play dumb." Once again, Mr. T saves the day. Let's just hope the big wigs tuned in.
News organizations need to suck up their bloated sense of pride and take a couple notes from the proven online heavyweights. You can still claim that the idea came from your conference room: just leave out the part about turning on the computer.
A more pragmatic approach to dealing with any problem is to either consult an expert or read up on it before you shoot from the hip and land in arrears.
It’s interesting to watch—in a twisted social experiment sort of way—how some major newspapers are tilting at the online windmill in an attempt to relive the glory days of the industry.
“Maybe we should charge for online access?” they think. Think again. Kids these days don’t like paying when they don’t have to. It may have become cliché to claim that the “younger generation” doesn’t read newspapers. That doesn’t mean they aren’t tuned in, they’re simply going elsewhere. And, chances are, they get their information free of charge. Making the decision to charge online readers for content won’t win many eyeballs, let alone the hearts and minds that sustain online communities.
Instead of staring backwards at the past for answers, or shaking down Generation X and Next for loose change—that’s like trying to squeeze blood from a turnip—progressive or fiscally-minded news organizations should look at some successful online companies for answers.
Jambase is one example of an online company that "made it big." It was started from scratch in 1998 and now has more than half a million unique visitors a month, and around 2 million page views each week. The site is free of charge for all users, and offers a variety of ways to personalize the site for each visitor. Despite not charging anyone for content, the company is still making decent coin: good enough for a little over a dozen people to work full-time in a downtown San Francisco office.
Online monetization isn’t really that complicated. More clicks equal more ad revenue. That’s it.
The difference between what Jambase experienced and what the newspaper industry is facing is significant: newspapers actually have a head start with product placement. Instead of thinking about “print” and “online” like oil and water, news organizations should embrace online evolution as a natural outgrowth of the industry. Get the smart folks at the company in the same room, brainstorm about hyperlocalism for a solid hour or two, and then get crackin’ on the website: if you build it, they will come.
A defeatist attitude about progress accomplishes nothing. Maybe a little Churchill will inspire, then: “The pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”
Online journalism today isn’t just about bloggers sitting in their parents’ basement, doing haphazard drive-by’s on mainstream media. It’s about scratching an itch that no one else can quite reach.
It’s not that the pajamas media is any better or different than the printed word folks either. They just happened to figure it out first...out of necessity.
Newspapers that are thinking of charging for online content are inhabiting a fool’s paradise. The past is gone, and it took its economic model back with it.
Mr. T may be known for saying "I pity the fool," but he also said "It takes a smart guy to play dumb." Once again, Mr. T saves the day. Let's just hope the big wigs tuned in.
News organizations need to suck up their bloated sense of pride and take a couple notes from the proven online heavyweights. You can still claim that the idea came from your conference room: just leave out the part about turning on the computer.
Sharing Grief: The Virginia Tech Massacre
My newsroom shift was yesterday afternoon, and I did little other than watch reports from CNN and FoxNews stream in. When nothing new was being reported, we got antsy and decided to see what the online community was discussing.
In the hope of finding something new, I jumped on Phishhook, a highly-trafficked message board, and—sure enough—there were several dozen posts, some from students at Virginia Tech. They reposted emails from the University, cut and pasted items from Wikipedia, and generally had a pretty good handle on the situation.
Then, after glancing at the site for several minutes, Multimedia Coordinator Patrick Lafferty and I logged onto the oft-maligned Wikipedia database. To my amazement, the site was more on top of its game than CNN. It had updates from more than a dozen different news sources, and posted breaking news well before CNN got it. It was interesting to watch the progression of the case from multiple angles. I’m not contending that Wikipedia is an infallible resource, or that CNN is a knuckle-dragging monolith--but it is fascinating to watch the online community and citizen journalists eclipse the single organization many Americans use for news.
CNN even had a caption at the bottom of their screen indicating that Virginia Tech students were posting items on Facebook and MySpace about the shooting. Within minutes, we examined the sites and discovered that more than 200 Hokies had signed up for a group discussion.
Simply put, there was more happening online than in the “real world” of fact gathering. How and why did this happen?
“Necessity is the mother of invention.”
When John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, the world stopped and people huddled next to their TV sets for an answer. Newspapers wouldn’t have an answer until the next day, so what else was there? Television created the cohesive narrative for a nation in grief.
No more national narrative. Walter Cronkite photo courtesy of Creative Commons
By placing all students under a beefed-up “house arrest,” Virginia Tech University paved the way for electronic communication. What other choice did students have? There was a need to discuss the most tragic shooting in U.S. history.
Eleven years ago, Reader’s Digest called Blacksburg, Virginia, “The Most Wired Town in America.” The infrastructure was there. The University also boasts nearly 39,000 people on Facebook. When you sequester grief-stricken college students for half a day in a highly connected campus, online outreach is inevitable.
My inelegant point is this: There is no single national narrative anymore.
Some people may tune in to CNN or FoxNews and never change the channel. Others may wait on Wikipedia for updates. Still others, seeking connection or condolences, may use MySpace or Facebook for their information and interaction. And then there’s the international scene: last night, BBC World News devoted 14 of its 30 minutes to the shootings, airing literally the longest sound bites I had heard on the nightly news.
The anchor no longer overshadows the story. With the JFK assassination, the world watched as Walter Cronkite peeled off his glasses and choked back tears of disbelief. When 9/11 hit, Aaron Brown went from a no-name to a household name within hours. The story isn’t about what an anchor or any single person thinks anymore, but the grief is no less palpable and the events no less tragic.
The story behind the story is that the whole concept of news and reporting has changed. Focusing on the quality of video or who filmed what is little more than a sideshow. Just as Virginia Tech students heard about the tragedy in different ways--some over PDA, others by word of mouth—the general public now gets its information from more sources than ever. The national narrative may have been lost, but our collective sense of bewilderment and grief remains.
In the hope of finding something new, I jumped on Phishhook, a highly-trafficked message board, and—sure enough—there were several dozen posts, some from students at Virginia Tech. They reposted emails from the University, cut and pasted items from Wikipedia, and generally had a pretty good handle on the situation.
Then, after glancing at the site for several minutes, Multimedia Coordinator Patrick Lafferty and I logged onto the oft-maligned Wikipedia database. To my amazement, the site was more on top of its game than CNN. It had updates from more than a dozen different news sources, and posted breaking news well before CNN got it. It was interesting to watch the progression of the case from multiple angles. I’m not contending that Wikipedia is an infallible resource, or that CNN is a knuckle-dragging monolith--but it is fascinating to watch the online community and citizen journalists eclipse the single organization many Americans use for news.
CNN even had a caption at the bottom of their screen indicating that Virginia Tech students were posting items on Facebook and MySpace about the shooting. Within minutes, we examined the sites and discovered that more than 200 Hokies had signed up for a group discussion.
Simply put, there was more happening online than in the “real world” of fact gathering. How and why did this happen?
“Necessity is the mother of invention.”
When John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, the world stopped and people huddled next to their TV sets for an answer. Newspapers wouldn’t have an answer until the next day, so what else was there? Television created the cohesive narrative for a nation in grief.
No more national narrative. Walter Cronkite photo courtesy of Creative Commons
By placing all students under a beefed-up “house arrest,” Virginia Tech University paved the way for electronic communication. What other choice did students have? There was a need to discuss the most tragic shooting in U.S. history.
Eleven years ago, Reader’s Digest called Blacksburg, Virginia, “The Most Wired Town in America.” The infrastructure was there. The University also boasts nearly 39,000 people on Facebook. When you sequester grief-stricken college students for half a day in a highly connected campus, online outreach is inevitable.
My inelegant point is this: There is no single national narrative anymore.
Some people may tune in to CNN or FoxNews and never change the channel. Others may wait on Wikipedia for updates. Still others, seeking connection or condolences, may use MySpace or Facebook for their information and interaction. And then there’s the international scene: last night, BBC World News devoted 14 of its 30 minutes to the shootings, airing literally the longest sound bites I had heard on the nightly news.
The anchor no longer overshadows the story. With the JFK assassination, the world watched as Walter Cronkite peeled off his glasses and choked back tears of disbelief. When 9/11 hit, Aaron Brown went from a no-name to a household name within hours. The story isn’t about what an anchor or any single person thinks anymore, but the grief is no less palpable and the events no less tragic.
The story behind the story is that the whole concept of news and reporting has changed. Focusing on the quality of video or who filmed what is little more than a sideshow. Just as Virginia Tech students heard about the tragedy in different ways--some over PDA, others by word of mouth—the general public now gets its information from more sources than ever. The national narrative may have been lost, but our collective sense of bewilderment and grief remains.
Digital Friendship & Ping Pong with Stalin
In the series premiere of Seinfeld, Jerry has issues with a “friend.” Jerry essentially wants to “dump” him, but isn’t sure how to end the friendship, as he explains to George:
The situation escalates, and reaches a breaking point at Monk’s when Joel angrily berates the waitress. Finally, the confrontation:
18 years have passed since the episode aired. In that time, MySpace, Facebook, and digital communication have made it more difficult to “dump” friends, but easier to establish boundaries and expectations for the friendship.Text messaging can be used between close friends that may be busy at the time, unable to take the call, or wanting to exchange thoughts on a game in progress. But it’s also a handy device to keep real-time human interaction at arm’s length: a “buffer” between you and someone you don’t really feel like dealing with.
MySpace and Facebook can be a semi-entertaining way for friends, separated by distance, to maintain (artificial) contact. But it’s also a convenient dumping ground for half-friends. Digital communiqués become substitutes for meaningful exchanges. If you didn’t take a phone call or answer an email, you can slap a sentence fragment on that person’s profile a week later as a pseudo-apology. It’s easier to have imbalanced relationships with MySpace and Facebook as well. One person could have little to no interest in another, yet have them as a “friend” on a social networking site. These “half-friends” in turn take an unusual interest in the other person.
Seinfeld experiences this during his attempted breakup:
In the digital age, an easy solution for a surplus of friends is to corral them onto your MySpace or Facebook page. Many people’s “my friends” list reads like a Rolodex of contacts from the past five years: some people you genuinely like; others you just happened to bump into.It’s tougher to eliminate friends in the digital age. And while the Seinfeld episode may have aired before the Internet went mainstream, his concluding thoughts seem fitting here:
“He lived three houses down from me when I grew up. He had a ping pong
table. We were friends. Should I suffer the rest of my life because I like to
play ping pong? I was ten! I would have been friends with Stalin if he had a
ping pong table!”
The situation escalates, and reaches a breaking point at Monk’s when Joel angrily berates the waitress. Finally, the confrontation:
“Listen, Joel…I don’t think we should see each other any more. This friendship: it’s not working.”
--Not working? What are you talking about?
“We’re just not…suited to be friends.”
--But how can you say that?“Look, you’re a nice guy. It’s just…we don’t have anything in common.”
--Wa—well, what did I do? I want to know what I did.
“You didn’t do anything. It’s not you…it’s me. This is very difficult.”
18 years have passed since the episode aired. In that time, MySpace, Facebook, and digital communication have made it more difficult to “dump” friends, but easier to establish boundaries and expectations for the friendship.Text messaging can be used between close friends that may be busy at the time, unable to take the call, or wanting to exchange thoughts on a game in progress. But it’s also a handy device to keep real-time human interaction at arm’s length: a “buffer” between you and someone you don’t really feel like dealing with.
MySpace and Facebook can be a semi-entertaining way for friends, separated by distance, to maintain (artificial) contact. But it’s also a convenient dumping ground for half-friends. Digital communiqués become substitutes for meaningful exchanges. If you didn’t take a phone call or answer an email, you can slap a sentence fragment on that person’s profile a week later as a pseudo-apology. It’s easier to have imbalanced relationships with MySpace and Facebook as well. One person could have little to no interest in another, yet have them as a “friend” on a social networking site. These “half-friends” in turn take an unusual interest in the other person.
Seinfeld experiences this during his attempted breakup:
--Jerry, I don’t understand – how can you do this? You’re my best friend!
“I’ve never even been to your apartment.”
In the digital age, an easy solution for a surplus of friends is to corral them onto your MySpace or Facebook page. Many people’s “my friends” list reads like a Rolodex of contacts from the past five years: some people you genuinely like; others you just happened to bump into.It’s tougher to eliminate friends in the digital age. And while the Seinfeld episode may have aired before the Internet went mainstream, his concluding thoughts seem fitting here:
“I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s certain friends in your life,
where they’re just always your friends, and you have to accept it. You see
them—you don’t really want to see them. You don’t call them—they call you. You
don’t call back—they call again.
The only way to get through talking to people you don’t like or have anything in common with is to act like you’re hosting your own little talk show. This is what I do: you pretend there’s a little desk around you. There’s a little chair over there. And you interview them.
The only problem with this is that there’s no way to say ‘Hey. It’s been great havin’ you on the show. We’re out of time.”
Huggieville Relocates
Bob Huggins leaving K-State after just one season may be one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard.
It’s the athletic equivalent of serving your spouse with divorce papers in the middle of the honeymoon.
There are some Jayhawk backers that actually are troubled by the development. “It’s bad for the Big XII,” they cry.
Get over it.
All the talk in recent weeks about KU losing to the Bruins because the Big XII was a weak conference is just that: talk.
A supposedly weak conference had the national player of the year, two first team All-Americans and three teams in the Sweet 16. Regardless of the stature of the conference, the games you played in January and February make little difference when you go 14 for 33 on dunks and layups. KU lost because the shots didn’t fall, not because of a “weak” Big XII North.
That’s almost beside the point anyway.
K-State fans were quick to adopt a new sense of swagger this year. Huggy-bear promised to make their dreams a reality. Beating the Jayhawks was guaranteed.
Wildcat fans were living in Huggieville, which is like a 21st century hobo camp for a motley crew of one-and-done phenoms and shady timebombs given their third or fourth stab at success.
The Wildcat fans weren’t even that excited about the current year. “Just wait—“they would say with a smile, “two years or three years from now, we’ll be beating you guys regularly.”
How sweet it is, then, that the apple of Manhattan’s eye jets after just one season.
I thought it was interesting that the online community seemed to be ahead of the curve on breaking the news. Message boards were slammed with reports from sports fanatics with too much time on their hands, and details trickled in: the only reason he didn’t take the job six years ago was because of the president of West Virginia, who is now stepping down in a few weeks; the provost at K-State was trying to transfer to West Virginia as well; and, the kicker – some sleuthing at FlightTrack revealed that a private plane was heading from West Virginia to Manhattan, Kansas. Later that day, the online murmurs were confirmed around 2:20 central time as Bob Huggins made the announcement.
At the press conference, K-State’s distaste for Huggy Bear’s move was palpable. Maybe part of that had to do with the laughable buy-out Huggins had. West Virginia had to fork over just $100,000 for the rights to Huggins…compared to $2.5 million that Michigan paid for the rights to West Viriginia’s coach.
I could go on for days, but I’ll stop here…and drop this essay quicker than Huggy left K-State.
Actually, I’m going to scan ebay for a K-State “Welcome to Huggieville” shirt, or maybe one of those “blackout” shirts: there should be plenty that were only worn once.
It’s the athletic equivalent of serving your spouse with divorce papers in the middle of the honeymoon.
There are some Jayhawk backers that actually are troubled by the development. “It’s bad for the Big XII,” they cry.
Get over it.
All the talk in recent weeks about KU losing to the Bruins because the Big XII was a weak conference is just that: talk.
A supposedly weak conference had the national player of the year, two first team All-Americans and three teams in the Sweet 16. Regardless of the stature of the conference, the games you played in January and February make little difference when you go 14 for 33 on dunks and layups. KU lost because the shots didn’t fall, not because of a “weak” Big XII North.
That’s almost beside the point anyway.
K-State fans were quick to adopt a new sense of swagger this year. Huggy-bear promised to make their dreams a reality. Beating the Jayhawks was guaranteed.
Wildcat fans were living in Huggieville, which is like a 21st century hobo camp for a motley crew of one-and-done phenoms and shady timebombs given their third or fourth stab at success.
The Wildcat fans weren’t even that excited about the current year. “Just wait—“they would say with a smile, “two years or three years from now, we’ll be beating you guys regularly.”
How sweet it is, then, that the apple of Manhattan’s eye jets after just one season.
I thought it was interesting that the online community seemed to be ahead of the curve on breaking the news. Message boards were slammed with reports from sports fanatics with too much time on their hands, and details trickled in: the only reason he didn’t take the job six years ago was because of the president of West Virginia, who is now stepping down in a few weeks; the provost at K-State was trying to transfer to West Virginia as well; and, the kicker – some sleuthing at FlightTrack revealed that a private plane was heading from West Virginia to Manhattan, Kansas. Later that day, the online murmurs were confirmed around 2:20 central time as Bob Huggins made the announcement.
At the press conference, K-State’s distaste for Huggy Bear’s move was palpable. Maybe part of that had to do with the laughable buy-out Huggins had. West Virginia had to fork over just $100,000 for the rights to Huggins…compared to $2.5 million that Michigan paid for the rights to West Viriginia’s coach.
I could go on for days, but I’ll stop here…and drop this essay quicker than Huggy left K-State.
Actually, I’m going to scan ebay for a K-State “Welcome to Huggieville” shirt, or maybe one of those “blackout” shirts: there should be plenty that were only worn once.
If You Have to Ask, You'll Never Know
“It’s one thing to fly in and cover a news event and fly out. To understand the full context, you have to live in the community…There’s no nationally distributed heartland perspective.”
--Victoria Ekstrand, Asst. Professor of Journalism at Bowling Green State University
If you aren’t finding a satisfactory answer, maybe you’re asking the wrong question.
The notion that “there’s no nationally distributed heartland perspective” is patently absurd: that dated logic is about as useful as a card catalog.
Didn’t you get the memo? The World is Flat and the digital age has obliterated time and space.
What precisely is it that you’d like to know about us little ol’ “Midwesterners” anyway? (We’re downright flattered thatcha care enough to ask).
Turns out we’re not as shy as you might’ve imagined.
Of course, you can always get a decent bird’s eye view of the landscape by checking out the major regional newspapers.
But it’s not tough to dig a little deeper for some local flavor.
Want to know “what’s up with Missouri?” You can find out what’s poppin’ in Branson, if you’re interested. Curious about the latest in politics in the Ozarks? Gotcha covered. Missouri republicans have their own community site as well. Missouri Democrats? Local politics in the greater Kansas City area? Random thoughts on Missouri politics from a self-described “grassroots guy?” Check.
What are farmers from the heartland thinking?
And while we’re at it, What’s the Matter With Kansas? If you don’t want to take the time to read the whole book, you can always check out one writer’s thoughts on the whole “science, evolution, education, religion, politics and more” debate. Or check out what a grad student at KU is thinking.
If you want to know what’s going on in any Midwestern Podunk town, you can probably find it—sometimes in places like…“A Town Called Podunk.”
The days of wasting human bandwidth by pounding the pavement are over.
The days of leisurely immersing yourself in a pseudo-ethnographic study to learn the inner-workings of a group of people are over.
You can learn a surprising amount about anything without leaving your living room. You just have to know what you’re looking for, where to look, and the correct questions to ask.
It’s part and parcel of Journalism 2.0.
Spring Break!!!
“SPRING BREAK!!!”
You’ve gotta either yell it, or follow it up with a heartfelt “Wooooooo-Hooooooo!”
This has become a bit of an inside joke among a couple dozen friends of mine for the past several years. It began as a slightly irritated observation:
“You know those party clips that MTV shows with people dancing on the beach and crap?”
“Yeah.”
“Why does everyone yell “Spring Break” on those? I mean, seriously!--who really says that?! …And they do it *every* time, too.”
We determined that “Spring Break!” is actually a state of mind.
It should be used as a greeting—you have people over, and someone may swing the door open, and, struggling to carry in a fresh 12-pack, may shriek “Spring Break!” to announce their arrival instead of actually knocking or offering a more traditional salutation.
It’s a battle cry for scholastic brethren. It has a certain motivating appeal that is Lombardi-esque, and usually results in a roomful of raised glasses and broad smiles.
“Spring Break!” actually works best when it’s unexpected: the dead of winter, for example. It’s a cathartic iteration that spices up any occasion, if only momentarily.
The kids on the MTV clips may have been catering to the cameras, but they struck a common nerve. “Spring Break!” is living in the moment, surrounded by good friends and not caring what tomorrow may bring.
And, because March Madness is tipping off right now, “that’s all I’ve got to say about that.”
SPRING BREAK!
You’ve gotta either yell it, or follow it up with a heartfelt “Wooooooo-Hooooooo!”
This has become a bit of an inside joke among a couple dozen friends of mine for the past several years. It began as a slightly irritated observation:
“You know those party clips that MTV shows with people dancing on the beach and crap?”
“Yeah.”
“Why does everyone yell “Spring Break” on those? I mean, seriously!--who really says that?! …And they do it *every* time, too.”
We determined that “Spring Break!” is actually a state of mind.
It should be used as a greeting—you have people over, and someone may swing the door open, and, struggling to carry in a fresh 12-pack, may shriek “Spring Break!” to announce their arrival instead of actually knocking or offering a more traditional salutation.
It’s a battle cry for scholastic brethren. It has a certain motivating appeal that is Lombardi-esque, and usually results in a roomful of raised glasses and broad smiles.
“Spring Break!” actually works best when it’s unexpected: the dead of winter, for example. It’s a cathartic iteration that spices up any occasion, if only momentarily.
The kids on the MTV clips may have been catering to the cameras, but they struck a common nerve. “Spring Break!” is living in the moment, surrounded by good friends and not caring what tomorrow may bring.
And, because March Madness is tipping off right now, “that’s all I’ve got to say about that.”
SPRING BREAK!
Newspapers in Flux
Financial State of the Newspaper Industry
There is a virtual consensus that the newspaper industry is in a state of decline. It isn’t that the business is no longer profitable; rather, profit margins are slowly receding as younger generations obtain their news online—and often free of charge. The situation is not unlike that faced by the music industry five years ago when illegal downloads threatened the traditional business model: Some companies will fall by the wayside, while the innovators and creative thinkers in other organizations will “roll with the punches” and adapt to the new model. The news organizations that will thrive in the new model will embrace evolution and view the “print versus online” situation as a “both / and” opportunity instead of an “either / or” conundrum. The problem is convincing the decision makers within news organizations (and/or investors) that changes must be made to ensure future profitability.
The American Journalism Review from March and April of this year featured several articles from experts in the field that were concerned with the future of the newspaper industry. Rem Rieder, Editor and Senior Vice President of AJR, summed things up nicely: “In recent years public ownership of newspapers has gotten more bad ink than Terrell Owens.” He discusses McClatchy buying the Star Tribune in Minneapolis in 1998 for $1.2 billion, and that eight years later it is “dumping its largest paper for less than half of what it paid for it.” He contends that “readers and advertisers [are] defecting to the Internet in droves,” which is certainly true, but he does not discuss the potential for newspapers to inhabit the medium.
As if on cue, the next article in AJR was about Robert Allbritton, underwriter for Politico.com. Allbritton started things off on a high note, by hiring Him VandeHei and John Harris from the Washington Post as editor in chief and executive editor of the publication. They have 19 writers and 11 editors, bringing experience from Time, USA Today, and other sources. The organization is far more than talented reporters, though: “Synergy is a big part of Allbritton’s formula…[He] has cut a deal to give his reporters and editors high-profile exposure with regular appearances on CBS. In addition to the Internet site, the Politico’s team will produce a daily television show for Webcast and potential syndication.” Allbritton plans to produce a newspaper three days a week while Congress is in session and hopes to “tap into a lucrative, only-in-Washington market of…government contractors and lobbyists.” Probably the most interesting note of interest is that Allbritton seems to understand the economics of the industry: “Publishing strictly on the Internet is ‘the future,’ he adds. ‘It’s not here yet.’” The message is simple: economic success requires an integrated approach.
That same thought guided Robert Kuttner’s piece in the March/April edition of Columbia Journalism Review, where he succinctly argues, “newspapers stay alive as hybrids.” Kuttner notes with a tinge of self-deprecating humor that he turned to a 22-year old “colleague…prodigy…I opened the conversation by inviting us to compare how we get our daily ration of information. I begin my day, I immodestly confessed, by reading four newspapers. What do you do? Ezra suppressed a smirk. I use about 150 or 200 RSS feeds and bookmarks, he explained.” Kuttner concludes that he was “feeling very last century.” Perhaps even more interesting is that in his interviews, he expected to encounter dread from newspaper editors regarding the online shift, but surprisingly found that virtually everyone was either “fine” with the shift, or—more often—enthusiastic about the potential. “It wasn’t very long ago that I and a lot of other people in the newsroom were worried about the competition from the Web, and its effect on journalism…we were wrong. The Web is not the distraction that we feared it would be, and all the feedback improves the journalism.” Kuttner then delves into the world of hyperlocalism, citing the pride of Lawrence, Rich Curley, and his work at the Lawrence Journal World, Naples Daily News, and other publications. He concludes his article much as I began mine: “As readers, we no longer have to make that either / or choice between newspapers and the wild Web. We can have both the authoritative daily newspaper to aggregate and certify, and the infinite medley of the Web—all of which puts the traditional press under salutary pressure to innovate and to excel.”
For the time being, however, it is always easier to prolong necessary change. Robert Picard argues in the Winter 2006 Nieman Reports that newspapers “Tend to engage in short-term planning rather than developing longer-term strategic visions and promoting company development. Investors pressure them for short-term returns more than they do other types of companies that are able to articulate a vision of a sustainable future.” He believes that the problem is that many newspapers need to develop a new strategy for attracting readers and investors: “Forward thinking requires newspaper companies to rethink their roles as creators and purveyors of information.” In short, he argues that each newspaper must consider “who they are, what they are, and how they serve readers.” It seems simple, but can be a daunting task—particularly if it requires reorganization of the company; the danger of course is that a company may not realize a substantial economic return quickly enough to retain its investors.
In that same edition of Nieman Reports, Chris Cobler passionately argues that the industry he loves is in a “death spiral,” and changes must be made to survive. He argues that newsrooms need to be aligned in such a way that accepts the online reality, and trains reporters to work in a multimedia setting. He too sees it as a matter of attitude: “The Harvard Business School professors, among others, advise that we can view this change as a threat or an opportunity.” He sees the path ahead as one of great change that entails “looking for new partners and being willing to collaborate far outside of our comfort zone. And it means knowing that we have to cannibalize our print edition rather than grudgingly having it happen because of a corporate dictate.”
The newspaper industry has finally encountered a challenge to its monopoly on the dissemination of information. Some companies greet this reality while others ignore it at their own peril. News organizations have a balancing act between the online future and the present demands of investors seeking short-term returns. Allbritton’s synergistic model should provide an excellent blueprint to find what works. In the end, the risk-averse newspapers need to take the plunge. As Charles Bukowski reminds us in “Roll the Dice,” “If you’re going to try, go all the way.”
Works Cited
Cobler, Chris. “Risk-Adverse Newspapers Won’t Cross the Digital Divide.” Nieman Reports. Winter 2006. Accessed online at http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/06-4NRwinter/p08-0604-cobler.html
Kiely, Kathy. “Politico Mojo.” American Journalism Review. February/March 2007, p. 10-11.
Kuttner, Robert. “The Race: Newspapers can Make it to a Bright Print-Digital Future After All—But Only if They Run Fast and Dodge Wall Street.” Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 2007, p. 24-32.
Picard, Robert G. “Capital Crisis in the Profitable Newspaper Industry.” Nieman Reports. Winter 2006. Accessed online at http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/06-4NRwinter/p10-0604-picard.html
Rieder, Rem. “The Conventional Wisdom Trap: When it Comes to Newspaper Ownership, Saviors are Elusive.” American Journalism Review. February/March 2007, p. 4.
There is a virtual consensus that the newspaper industry is in a state of decline. It isn’t that the business is no longer profitable; rather, profit margins are slowly receding as younger generations obtain their news online—and often free of charge. The situation is not unlike that faced by the music industry five years ago when illegal downloads threatened the traditional business model: Some companies will fall by the wayside, while the innovators and creative thinkers in other organizations will “roll with the punches” and adapt to the new model. The news organizations that will thrive in the new model will embrace evolution and view the “print versus online” situation as a “both / and” opportunity instead of an “either / or” conundrum. The problem is convincing the decision makers within news organizations (and/or investors) that changes must be made to ensure future profitability.
The American Journalism Review from March and April of this year featured several articles from experts in the field that were concerned with the future of the newspaper industry. Rem Rieder, Editor and Senior Vice President of AJR, summed things up nicely: “In recent years public ownership of newspapers has gotten more bad ink than Terrell Owens.” He discusses McClatchy buying the Star Tribune in Minneapolis in 1998 for $1.2 billion, and that eight years later it is “dumping its largest paper for less than half of what it paid for it.” He contends that “readers and advertisers [are] defecting to the Internet in droves,” which is certainly true, but he does not discuss the potential for newspapers to inhabit the medium.
As if on cue, the next article in AJR was about Robert Allbritton, underwriter for Politico.com. Allbritton started things off on a high note, by hiring Him VandeHei and John Harris from the Washington Post as editor in chief and executive editor of the publication. They have 19 writers and 11 editors, bringing experience from Time, USA Today, and other sources. The organization is far more than talented reporters, though: “Synergy is a big part of Allbritton’s formula…[He] has cut a deal to give his reporters and editors high-profile exposure with regular appearances on CBS. In addition to the Internet site, the Politico’s team will produce a daily television show for Webcast and potential syndication.” Allbritton plans to produce a newspaper three days a week while Congress is in session and hopes to “tap into a lucrative, only-in-Washington market of…government contractors and lobbyists.” Probably the most interesting note of interest is that Allbritton seems to understand the economics of the industry: “Publishing strictly on the Internet is ‘the future,’ he adds. ‘It’s not here yet.’” The message is simple: economic success requires an integrated approach.
That same thought guided Robert Kuttner’s piece in the March/April edition of Columbia Journalism Review, where he succinctly argues, “newspapers stay alive as hybrids.” Kuttner notes with a tinge of self-deprecating humor that he turned to a 22-year old “colleague…prodigy…I opened the conversation by inviting us to compare how we get our daily ration of information. I begin my day, I immodestly confessed, by reading four newspapers. What do you do? Ezra suppressed a smirk. I use about 150 or 200 RSS feeds and bookmarks, he explained.” Kuttner concludes that he was “feeling very last century.” Perhaps even more interesting is that in his interviews, he expected to encounter dread from newspaper editors regarding the online shift, but surprisingly found that virtually everyone was either “fine” with the shift, or—more often—enthusiastic about the potential. “It wasn’t very long ago that I and a lot of other people in the newsroom were worried about the competition from the Web, and its effect on journalism…we were wrong. The Web is not the distraction that we feared it would be, and all the feedback improves the journalism.” Kuttner then delves into the world of hyperlocalism, citing the pride of Lawrence, Rich Curley, and his work at the Lawrence Journal World, Naples Daily News, and other publications. He concludes his article much as I began mine: “As readers, we no longer have to make that either / or choice between newspapers and the wild Web. We can have both the authoritative daily newspaper to aggregate and certify, and the infinite medley of the Web—all of which puts the traditional press under salutary pressure to innovate and to excel.”
For the time being, however, it is always easier to prolong necessary change. Robert Picard argues in the Winter 2006 Nieman Reports that newspapers “Tend to engage in short-term planning rather than developing longer-term strategic visions and promoting company development. Investors pressure them for short-term returns more than they do other types of companies that are able to articulate a vision of a sustainable future.” He believes that the problem is that many newspapers need to develop a new strategy for attracting readers and investors: “Forward thinking requires newspaper companies to rethink their roles as creators and purveyors of information.” In short, he argues that each newspaper must consider “who they are, what they are, and how they serve readers.” It seems simple, but can be a daunting task—particularly if it requires reorganization of the company; the danger of course is that a company may not realize a substantial economic return quickly enough to retain its investors.
In that same edition of Nieman Reports, Chris Cobler passionately argues that the industry he loves is in a “death spiral,” and changes must be made to survive. He argues that newsrooms need to be aligned in such a way that accepts the online reality, and trains reporters to work in a multimedia setting. He too sees it as a matter of attitude: “The Harvard Business School professors, among others, advise that we can view this change as a threat or an opportunity.” He sees the path ahead as one of great change that entails “looking for new partners and being willing to collaborate far outside of our comfort zone. And it means knowing that we have to cannibalize our print edition rather than grudgingly having it happen because of a corporate dictate.”
The newspaper industry has finally encountered a challenge to its monopoly on the dissemination of information. Some companies greet this reality while others ignore it at their own peril. News organizations have a balancing act between the online future and the present demands of investors seeking short-term returns. Allbritton’s synergistic model should provide an excellent blueprint to find what works. In the end, the risk-averse newspapers need to take the plunge. As Charles Bukowski reminds us in “Roll the Dice,” “If you’re going to try, go all the way.”
Works Cited
Cobler, Chris. “Risk-Adverse Newspapers Won’t Cross the Digital Divide.” Nieman Reports. Winter 2006. Accessed online at http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/06-4NRwinter/p08-0604-cobler.html
Kiely, Kathy. “Politico Mojo.” American Journalism Review. February/March 2007, p. 10-11.
Kuttner, Robert. “The Race: Newspapers can Make it to a Bright Print-Digital Future After All—But Only if They Run Fast and Dodge Wall Street.” Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 2007, p. 24-32.
Picard, Robert G. “Capital Crisis in the Profitable Newspaper Industry.” Nieman Reports. Winter 2006. Accessed online at http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/06-4NRwinter/p10-0604-picard.html
Rieder, Rem. “The Conventional Wisdom Trap: When it Comes to Newspaper Ownership, Saviors are Elusive.” American Journalism Review. February/March 2007, p. 4.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)