Front page follies

That's one slow news day out there, but I still have to say that the Globe's front page story (with sub-Facebook photo) about Michael Phelps and a bong represents everything I hate about journalism today. The only honest headline would be: "Trivial Act of Uninteresting Person Prompts Cynical Corporate Pseudo-Scandal", and that doesn't really describe a story that belongs on the front page, does it? If Phelps' sponsors do dump him, there's a case to be made for a story in the Business section, and certainly for an editorial pointing out how silly and corrupt the whole sponsorship racket is. But they haven't done it yet. No doubt the Globe is proud of itself for being ahead of the story here, but what it amounts to is that they're egging on the mindless festival of hypocrisy they're predicting. Ugh.  

 

Once again, the on-line edition turns out to be a bit more grown-up: there the story is last on the list under Sports.

Digging their own graves

So Bill Kristol won't be writing a column for the New York Times any more. Instead, he'll be writing a column for the Washington Post! And the betting seems to be that the NYT will get some other ignorant right-wing doofus (that being the kind that's always in stock) to fill his slot. So there we are.

I think this will go down as the moment, or one of the pivotal moments, at which mainsteam American print journalism really jumped the shark. There is just no way that the editors of either the NYT or the WP are stupid enough not to realise that Bill Kristol is, in fact, stupid. They just don't care, because they have a cynical contempt for their readers. The thinking is that those readers are either themselves right-wing dickheads who don't care about that whole true/false distinction; or, that if they're reality-based, they're masochists who will be enthralled by a paper that makes them mad. But banking on the masochism of your customers is really not a great long-term business strategy.*

I used to have a subscription to the Sunday Times, but I can't say I was sorry when it lapsed. (Which it did because when my credit card rolled over they couldn't be bothered to contact me for the new expiry date -- I know an anecdote is not data, but that still seems to me to cast a lurid light on the NYT's circulation promotion efforts.) They have plenty of good 'content', but I just scan it whenever it suits me on line. I do not miss having it in the house. What do I subscribe to (besides the Globe)? The New Yorker, which they'd have to pry out of my cold dead hands. I also pay rather a lot to get the London Review of Books delivered. I read both when I dine alone; they're welcome in my house as good company. I trust them. I'm fond of them.

Now nothing stops a newspaper from being a beloved brand like that. I'm sure there are crazy-ass rightwing businessmen who are genuinely fond of the Wall Street Journal. I've heard people speak with affection of the Financial Times. And time was when the most treasured luxury in a lefty North American household was the copy of Manchester Guardian, airmailed worldwide every week at fantastic expense. (Imagine caring that much about a newspaper!) But then the Guardian decided to become just like every other paper, and sure enough now it sucks. And every time the NYT or WP hires a right-wing moron just for 'controversy' or a 'balance' nobody believes in, it's a sign that they just don't think it matters whether anybody actually likes their brand. As revenues plummet, in an era of almost infinite free content... yeah, good luck with that.

*Or maybe, dumbest of all, they maybe think it doesn't matter if you have a few nutbars and liars on staff so long as you also have columnists who cater to the reader who happens to prefer truth. So long as you have Paul Krugman, why mind about Bill Kristol? Think of it as balance! An even bigger tent! It's like a restaurant deciding to enhance its weekend brunch buffet with a poisoned rat dish -- I mean hey, what's the problem, we've still got the omelets for folks who like them, and now we'll be getting the poisoned rat market too! It just doesn't work that way.

By popular request

I didn't mention it yesterday, because I'm trying to keep a cap on the number of posts about how awful the front page looks. But yes, it does seem ridiculous to have a front-page story about the fact that Ian Brodie is now a lobbyist. And the headline is ridiculous too:

"PM's former adviser accused of peddling access to corridors of power"

... in other words accused of being a lobbyist. Shock, horror, shock. Of course he's a lobbyist: that's what people like that do, after leaving the PMO and similar, and I've never understood why it's viewed as inherently evil. Our political system depends absolutely on a large cadre of full-time career political hacks -- the guys who run the campaigns, keep the party machinery working, develop policy, talent-spot and hold things together for whichever party is out of power. They don't hold elected office (a good thing) and aren't really employable outside of politics either (also good). Meanwhile given the nature of our system there are bound to be lobbyists of some description. Having the hacks employed as the lobbyists is a very effective way to get big business to massively subsidize the costs of our political system, without it being perceived as a tax. Of course governments that make bad policy because of insider lobbying are bad governments, but that doesn't have to be the outcome and it's a whole nother problem.