<< EMBRACE YOUR UNCOVERED MEAT STATUS ~ MAIN ~ SOCIETY DOOMED >>
HUMOUR WINS
NY Post editor Col Allan, whose paper has defied widespread trends to record a circulation increase, offers some excellent advice that applies as much to blogs as it does to print media:
“One of the things I’ve done at the Post is constantly ask everybody to listen to the market, to listen to their readers,” Allan says. “It’s a different approach than you generally see here in the US. Too many editors and too many journalists here feel that they have been ‘chosen’, that their view of the news and their opinions are what the readers should have. My approach is completely different. I try to listen to the readers and hear what they want from us. Then I work hard to give it to them.”
Allan says humour is the classic example. “We say a feeling of wellbeing and happiness is a good thing, so we work hard to make people have a laugh everyday,” he says. “But you go through the papers in this country and it’s amazing just how absolutely humourless they are.
“Humour doesn’t mean you can’t be serious about news and politics and crime and everything else. But they have a problem with it because of this arrogant notion that it may make them look less important to their readers. The price of this arrogance is that folks are turning off. And worse still, the editors are then turning around and blaming the internet. What they should be doing is working harder to produce newspapers that people actually want to consume and enjoy and have fun with.
“I was just talking to a guy from The New York Times who asked me if papers are losing their readers to the internet. I told him that might be true for papers like his, but not for mine and not for the Daily News.
“He asked me what I meant about the Daily News and I said: ‘Well, if they worked harder to make papers that weren’t so f—-ing dreary, they might have a better time of it.”
Col (full disclosure: he’s a friend) tends to say much the same to his own staff. It’s one reason why his papers sell.
oo many editors and too many journalists here feel that they have been ‘chosen’, that their view of the news and their opinions are what the readers should have.
He well nailed the long standing problem with our entire concept of the industry of journalism.
Too many of those that become journalists honestly believe themselves to be “other than” the common citizenry.
Too many journalists believe their own opinion and ideals to be those most valuable to the world at large and work under the misunderstanding that it is their duty to “educate” the commoner to believe as they do. Because of this, everything is fair game, there are no real rules, there is no real code, there are no truly true facts and anything goes as long as everyone is made to understand and believe as the journalist does.
They are not reporters news or involved in dissemination of verified information, except as a vehicle to further the indoctrination of what they consider to be the ignorant masses.
We have too few real journalists and an overwhelming plethora of “chosen” propagandists.
There is something else besides the lack of humor. In days of yore (I can’t pinpoint the time exactly, I’m thinking this era I’m talking about ended around the last days of the Vietnam War and really got going in the Seventies) even the serious news had a quality that I am going to call “grim upbeatness.” There was a sense that even in reporting the worst of news we were Doing Something Right—and that whatever crime or war or other problem was being talked about, there were good people working on solving or fixing the problem.
Then we “lost,” or rather “gave up,” the Vietnam War, and this glimpse of our own capacity to be losers and fuckups was too much for our coddled psyches. In typical self-centered Baby Boomer fashion, everything became just awful, too dreary for words, we were all doomed, the Ice Age is coming, London calling! That way we could blame it on something else (fate, The Man), and seek forgetfulness in pleasure. And one of those pleasures is self-dramatization, wallowing in bad feeling—this is what makes newspapers such a dreary read.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 11 03 at 01:36 PM • permalink#4: I agree, and I think your time-frame is exactly right. When “journalists” started taking themselves, instead of the news, seriously, it all came to pieces. And as to humor, some of the greatest newspaper writing in history has been heavily influenced, if not practically saturated, with it: H.L. Mencken (“Democracy is a zoo run from the monkey cage”), Mike Royko, Mark Steyn, for cryin’ out loud. I know these three are/were primarily known as essayists, but Mencken had been, and certainly considered himself, first and foremost a reporter, and there is probably no more subjective opining involved in the essays of these three writers than there is in what passes for “straight news” these days. I don’t even read newspapers anymore, except to check on sports, the weather and to see what Dilbert’s up to.
There was a good quote by one of the principles at FOX on this subject.
He was asked why the network is so popular. His answer was a classic:
“We decided not to be actively anti-American in our broadcasts.”
Much the same can be said of the new The New York Sun, which has beaten it’s own circulation goals already.
The Post would still rather hire a Briton or an Australian than an American. It’s as tone-deaf as the Times.
Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 11 03 at 02:38 PM • permalinkIt all happened when “newsmen” and “reporters” became “journalists”.
Andrea, it is so much easier to champion ineptitude and inefficacy. If one gives the impression that something can actually be done about a problem, there’s a danger someone might expect you to do it. If one champions those who are able and efficacious, that means that one has no excuse for one’s own sloth and emptiness.
So true about the humor. Tim and other blog sites make me laugh along with keeping me up to date. The newspaper opinion columnist are so solemn and earnest. They take things “seriously.” Heck, they even keep cutting the comic page.
It’s MoDo v Stewart again. She’s serious, we’re laughing and she can’t figure out why—maybe it is because we are morons. . .
Posted by tabitharuth on 2006 11 03 at 02:53 PM • permalinkInterlopers from British Commonwealth nations tend to see themselves as possessing quicker wits and sharper minds than Americans, and they are not shy on telling us so. All too many of my kind buy into it (I won’t even walk through Broadway to get to work on 10th Avenue) .I can’t help suspecting that the real reason for the relative success of the “New York” Post comes from its sensible emphasis on sports, particularly the spike it got from both teams of “baseballers” playing in the postseason. This is one gloatfest I could have done without.
Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 11 03 at 03:19 PM • permalinkAnd where the hell’s my Beccy Cole CD? Cowboy up, Amazon!
Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 11 03 at 03:34 PM • permalinkIt’s not like I’m schizo or anything.
Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 11 03 at 03:35 PM • permalinkchinesearithmetic-Steyn made some comment recently that American journalists often have any “distinctive voice” of their own killed by Journalism school (I think he said it on Hewitt).
I used to string sports for my local paper and I was often appalled to see what editors had done to even my meager scribblings.
Amen to the dreariness charge—which applies to television reporters as well. Paula Zahn looks like she is about to throw herself off the roof in despair most days. They have all the cachet of a man on a streetcorner with a sign that says “the end is near.”
At least the people on Fox News smile (with those high gloss lips!), crack a joke, and look like they are eager to meet the day.
Too many editors and too many journalists here feel that they have been ‘chosen’, that their view of the news and their opinions are what the readers should have.
I once heard Phat Phil say that ABC bias was OK because the ABC’s values were the correct values and the ABC was duty-bound to educate the rest of us.
My reflux problem does not allow me to listen to Phatty any more so I am missing out on his wisdom.Very perceptive. It’s why Fairfax and the ABC are losing their audience: dreary, humourless and full of arrogant certitude, talking down to the readers/listeners/viewers.You only have to compare the lead stories of Fairfax papers and the ABC with the rest of the media, to wonder if they are on the same planet as us.By contrast, it’s a treat to read the Telegraph in Sydney, which reflects its readers’ interests, is in touch with Australia and isn’t anti-Australian.
They gotta quit with the World of Woecraft Head-Tilt “journalism,” and for Godssake stop running the uncut Reuter-rooter and AP-spewage straight onto the pages. Just because you repeat the bleat doesn’t make it much different from plagiarism or any better than animal husbandry… Anyhow the hell with them, if you were drowning they’d throw you an anchor - I cancelled the dismal-news a long time ago and my mental health improved.
Posted by -keith in mtn. view on 2006 11 03 at 06:45 PM • permalinkHumor,
That’s why I too read this blogs comments.I just quickly read through the actual posts though, they are not as funny as the comments, and I just skim through them to get to the comments.
But I do like the posts ‘cos they’re short and don’t use big words like inappropriate and precautionary principle, and they don’t hold me up getting to the funny stuff.
Posted by The Young Contrarian on 2006 11 03 at 07:07 PM • permalinkDon’t you mean “avoid decrease in circulation”. The NY Post is the only one which has increased its circulation. Could it be that it talks to its readers as adults, not as naughty little school children who must repeat lines until they understand the wisdom of teacher.
And who of course could forget “Axis of Weasels”.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 11 03 at 08:16 PM • permalinkI trace a lot of the rot (though not all) to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in the 70’s, though I’m sure they didn’t intend the fallout. These were two serious journalists who managed, through a combination of diligent digging and sheer dumb luck, to bring down an American president. Coupled with the confusing Vietnam debacle, the outcome was that the only thing people felt they could believe in anymore was the fourth estate. And that was promply betrayed by a new generation of hungry young journalists hell-bent on securing similar star power for themselves. The result is that we have suffered through a jeremiad of every presidential administration since 1974, most notably that of Bill Clinton and George Bush. The press may lean left, but they cut Bill Clinton no slack through eight miserable years, and it’s pretty clear they actively hate George Bush. They want the power that comes with destroying power, damn the consequences.
And I say, damn them all.
#4 Interesting Andrea.
Certainly the “negative is good” came into vogue with the Vietnam war. But I date it later when the mainstream press actually became ACTIVELY ANTI-WEST and SELF-LOATHING. I date this to Watergate.
After then, cynicism was justified, even about mother Theresa. It was a badge of the derring-doo journo who was finding the truth behind the facade. And when there isn’t anything other than the plain daylight facts, we get Vast Conspiracies, which is where the press has ended up, without credibility.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 11 03 at 09:01 PM • permalink#12 Chinesearithmetic. I think you are half-right. It is true the British Commonwealth folks think they have a finer and subtler wit than the yanks. But, this is one civilization talking to another. The Britties don’t understand that America is a completely new civilization.
Based, certainly upon brit common law, etc. but culturally a completely new entity. The ROW (Rest of the World) still hasn’t appreciated that yet; or if they have, they are burning in jealousy.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 11 03 at 09:08 PM • permalinkNote to the NYT: “Humor wins” is NOT the same as “put out a newspaper that’s a frikkin’ joke…”
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 11 03 at 09:19 PM • permalinkThere is one aspect that I love about The Economist - there are no bylines on any of the stories. As far as the reader is aware, they are pumped out by some anonymous writer in some faraway land, and the lack of byline seems to ensure that ego is not injected into the writing.
The best thing editors could do is remove all photos of writers and all bylines. Return reporters to being anonymous witnesses to events, rather than commentators.
Posted by mr creosote on 2006 11 03 at 10:13 PM • permalinkYeah, Watergate opened the floodgates, as it were. But I think the rot started in the 60s, when the Baby Boomers were filtering into the intelligentsia. I don’t know but what my country has always been rather delusional about its leaders, but Nixon isn’t the first president to have done something (or overseen something done) on the shady side, and when you come down to it his offense was rather piddling. But W & B acted like they’d deposed Hitler.
The ire against Nixon was very real—my parents switched from the Republican party to the Democratic party because of Watergate—but I have often wondered if there wasn’t a bit of self-serving hysteria about the calls for his head. Ever since we broke from King George III there’s been a sense of letdown about American politics—other countries get to have exciting coups and are allowed to defenestrate their unwanted absolute monarchs every now and then, but we have to plod to the schoolhouse or church and check off a ballot, like checking off a grocery list. Scary Dick Nixon resigning on tv was as close as we got to that sort of fun. Our very own Ivan the (Not So) Terrible.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 11 03 at 10:34 PM • permalinkThat’s a very good point, and is kind of reflected here in the distinction between newspapers like The Age and The Herald Sun (to make reference to my local Melbourne rags.) The Age is a ‘worthy’ paper, full of hard-hitting journalism, and people tend to read it out of a sense of duty. To be fair, the folks at that paper have worked hard to provide focus on celebrity and entertainment news, and to have the occasional gossip and humour column.
At The Herald Sun, by contrast, they’ll print interesting and readable stories, and they’ll do it in an interesting format. They have great headlines, and always have an interesting angle (an article they did a few months back on ‘The Most popular books to steal from Melbourne bookstores’ comes to mind.)I think one of the reasons humour has declined in papers - in Australia, at least, not sure about overseas - is because we have LESS papers now than before, because of mergers, etc. So all the surviving papers feel they have to be generalist. Many of the niche entertainment and humour markets are taken up, by small-time publishers like Lovatt’s Crosswords and Auspac (between them, and one or two other local publishers, those groups have got the crossword/findaword/puzzles/games market wrapped up). Similarly with comics - they seem to be becoming smaller and smaller. Now they’re limited to two or three frames per day in the daily papers. For a lot of people - especially kids - comics are the sole reason to read papers! By contrast, comic artists like Herge, Goscinny and Uderzo designed for whole-page features with frames that went into the tens and twenties.
I would rather have liked to have been around in the days when papers like The Daily Truth (which apparently contained anything but) was circulating. That would have been fun. The least you could expect of the modern equivalents is that they’d stop taking themselves so seriously ...
American MSM has all the humor content, in general, of Stalinist Russia. And for the same reason. Thank God, the MSM doesn’t have Stalin’s power. The outcome would be the same.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2006 11 04 at 12:12 AM • permalinkBut I do like the posts ‘cos they’re short and don’t use big words like inappropriate and precautionary principle, and they don’t hold me up getting to the funny stuff.
#22, is that the best you can do?
Since you refer to the precautionary principle, I’ve found that blogs have generally had far more detailed and informed discussions on this issue than any ‘serious’ newspaper I can think of. I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of journalists have never even heard of the concept let alone understand its inadequacies.
In another example, it’s interesting that the MSM this week have devoted a lot of column space to the outlandish claims made by the Stern Report but have not analysed the report or even discussed its serious flaws in any depth at all. I’ve had to rely on blogs to find comment and criticism from real experts.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 11 04 at 01:04 AM • permalink#15 - I hadn’t seen that quote of Steyn’s, but as an ex-editor I’d say it’s spot on.
Leaving aside questions of actual writing, the Wellington Polytechnic (Australian equivalent: TAFE) journalism school was once presided over by a “doyenne of journalism” who prior to that position used to have her one page of babble (it might have been fashion, or perhaps the social page, I can’t recall which) set at the same typesetters as the newspaper I edited.
(This was in the days when comps keyed words in, it spewed out of big machines on very expensive photo paper and was actually cut and glued in place).
The chief comp told me the woman used to regularly overset by an average of 30 metres.
In other words: a) she had no idea how many words went onto a single tabloid page and/or b) she had no idea when to shut the hell up. He’d just cut from the bottom and then throw the profits from the job into the waste hopper, since what he was paid to set the page about equalled the value of the wastage.
Naturally, she was snapped up by academia to teach others. And naturally, every editor in town, myself included, binned the incoming resumes of every job-seeking polytechnic graduate.
(I concentrated on the whole over-set thing because words, of course, are inadequate to describe her dour and self-important writing style, which was also passed along).
#30
I remember when the reporters were anonymous. Who wrote a piece wasn’t a big deal. I have noticed in the last few years magazines write a little headline giving a precis of the article, who it’s about, and the writer. For example:“A.N. Entrepreneur has been at the forefront of hee-haw for three decades. Skeeter Busybody spoke with him for Today’s Rag.”
The writer’s name is bolded. I find that really annoying.
News is no longer reported. We get opinion.
Good example ABC news tonight
Four minutes devoted to American preachergate -not just the current one but three others dragged in from the past.
Followed by piece on African nations reps in glossy reception in China…
No mention as in the Oz of the magnitude of human rights breachers i.e.Mugabe and others
-who attended..Four minutes devoted to American preachergate -not just the current one but three others dragged in from the past.
Australia’s national news dedicated FOUR minutes of air time to an American preacher most Americans have never heard of?
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 11 04 at 12:22 PM • permalinkEver since W and B, the American media has acted like Warwick the Kingmaker. (However, Warwick knew what he was doing.) Examples: Washington Post, NYT, Dan Rather, etc.
Just report the news, you coxsux, and leave the thinking to your readers!
And I don’t even know who the hell the preacher is, that story’s so important.
I’ve never heard of him either, but then I don’t follow the fortunes of celebrity preachers. I did think that the fact that his name is “Haggard” was pretty funny, though.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 11 04 at 05:26 PM • permalinkBoth ABC and SBS (publicly funded stations) news last night devoted large parts of their bulletins to discussing why the Republicans were going to do incredibly badly in this week’s elections.
Preachergate (I think the argument was that this guy was head of the evangelicals who are big supporters of Bush (with the hint that Bush is their puppet) and represent 30 million votes), Iraq, Bush being a liability (no mention of Kerry of course), gay marriage and global warming were all given as reasons.
I guess this is why they get so disappointed after election results are announced. Reality’s a bitch.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 11 04 at 08:06 PM • permalinkI guess my variant on the ancient “Ride ‘er Haggard” joke just fell flat.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 11 04 at 08:20 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
What’s the famous New York Post headline?
Headless body in Topless Bar!
Classic.