Normally on Friday, we try to keep the mood lighter - and that is our intention, though it may not seem like it as we we begin today.
But first we have to report another vicious blow to America, with the incredibly stupid decision by Gannett Newspapers to put at least 700 more Americans onto the unemployment rolls.
We could rail against the insanity of such a decision - and internally, we are doing just that.
But it's Friday, so we're not going to dwell on the decisions of those who are incapable of seeing beyond the quarterly earnings statement. In time, the market will crush them into dust for their lack of vision - something successful investors like Warren Buffett continue to remind others about.
What we wish to point out to our former print colleagues in the media is something our web guru has been preaching to newspapers and radio stations and other "old school" media for years, now...
The idea that newspapers are dead is bull.
Old newspapers never die. They just get digitized - like every other type of media.
The problem that so many inside and outside the media field continue to have is that they confuse the medium with the message, just as Marshall McCluhan pointed out nearly fifty years ago.
The fact is, even though we have a huge number of new ways to consume media - Kindles, iPads, cell phones, and more - the MEDIA that we're taking in is the same as it was before. Someone has to draw the cartoons, someone has to write the words, and someone needs to edit the content and make sure things aren't misspelled or misinterpreted (Hear, us, bloggers?). If it's pictures, someone has to shoot the images. Of course, someone has to edit, lay out, and publish all of this content, as well.
Here's what the "newspaper" giants like Gannett won't tell you - they're really doing quite well financially, thanks to all their other divisions. Divisions which almost always crib their content from the original content created for "print products." Without the "print" creators, their other divisions will crumble.
Think about Hollywood movie blockbusters right now - where would they be without comic book writers and artists?
What's more, media consumption is on the increase worldwide. In America, we're taking in nearly 35% more media than we did just a few years ago. By the way, that increase came during the recession we're all still suffering through.
It's not that people aren't reading the newspaper any more. They are. You're reading a version of a newspaper right now. It's just one made up of pixels and glass, instead of ink and pulp.
So if you're one of our media colleagues suddenly looking for work again, take heart - your creative talents are still needed, and will continue to be needed in the future.
People will always have a need for someone creative to write, draw, photgraph, and edit the things they all enjoy reading.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
No Surprises
We watched the President's announcement of America's withdrawal from Afghanistan last night - and if you haven't seen it yet, we suggest you put aside about fifteen minutes and watch it. At the very least, read the transcript.
Frankly, there wasn't anything that surprised us about the speech.
It's not that we're jaded. We know the stereotype of people who work in media and communications - and while that cliché may have some basis in reality, it didn't color our opinion of the President's address - or the reactions of our colleagues in the media that we observed last night.
First, to the speech.
Several media organizations had already leaked earlier this week that President Obama would be calling for 10,000 troops to come home by the end of this year. Others leaked that Obama would call at least 30,000 troops back in the next fifteen months. Neither piece of news shocked us when the President confirmed them both.
We weren't even surprised that the President made his announcement this month. Eighteen months ago, at West Point, the President told the country then that he was sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in order to actually try and complete the mission initially assigned to those troops a decade ago. The initial mission was to subdue the Taliban, help bring back a secular government, and kill Osama Bin Laden. Eighteen months later, all three goals have been accomplished - and true to his word, President Obama is now beginning to bring the troops home.
Certainly, there were other factors in the President's decision, the cost of the wars being one of the largest. Overall though, this President has - more often than not - completed the goals he's set for himself, and worked to fulfill his promises. One look at Politifact's "Obmaeter" confirms that he's only broken his promises on 42 of 508 promises made before he took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Sadly, we remain unsurprised at how the partisans on both ends of the simplified political spectrum attacked the President after his speech.
On the left, the anti-war liberals immediately jumped on the President as not moving fast enough, and harped on the fact there will still be more troops in Afghanistan than there were when he was inaugurated. Of course, they'll conveniently ignore the fact that his predecessor never even sent the recommended number of troops to either Afghanistan or Iraq in the first place.
On the right, the members of the 101st Kowardly Keyboard Kommandos' Chickenhawk Division immediately jumped to the idea that ANY significant troop reduction is a choice between a safe America and an unsafe America. As we've noted before, we'll never know if they'd feel the same way if they'd been the ones serving four or five tours of duty in war zones over the last decade, instead of living off the largess of their parents and others.
We're not even surprised at the general lack of reaction from Afghans and Pakistanis. Regardless of when we leave, the Afghans will likely revert back to their age-old habits of tribal squabbles and corruption. And Pakistanis still aren't sure killing Bin Laden was a good idea.
Everyone knows where they stand on this issue - and it's no different than it was before the President's address last night. The only thing that might surprise us about his speech is if we found someone who actually changed their opinion of the war after the President's address.
We won't hold our breath we'll find anyone like that.
Frankly, there wasn't anything that surprised us about the speech.
It's not that we're jaded. We know the stereotype of people who work in media and communications - and while that cliché may have some basis in reality, it didn't color our opinion of the President's address - or the reactions of our colleagues in the media that we observed last night.
First, to the speech.
Several media organizations had already leaked earlier this week that President Obama would be calling for 10,000 troops to come home by the end of this year. Others leaked that Obama would call at least 30,000 troops back in the next fifteen months. Neither piece of news shocked us when the President confirmed them both.
We weren't even surprised that the President made his announcement this month. Eighteen months ago, at West Point, the President told the country then that he was sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in order to actually try and complete the mission initially assigned to those troops a decade ago. The initial mission was to subdue the Taliban, help bring back a secular government, and kill Osama Bin Laden. Eighteen months later, all three goals have been accomplished - and true to his word, President Obama is now beginning to bring the troops home.
Certainly, there were other factors in the President's decision, the cost of the wars being one of the largest. Overall though, this President has - more often than not - completed the goals he's set for himself, and worked to fulfill his promises. One look at Politifact's "Obmaeter" confirms that he's only broken his promises on 42 of 508 promises made before he took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Sadly, we remain unsurprised at how the partisans on both ends of the simplified political spectrum attacked the President after his speech.
On the left, the anti-war liberals immediately jumped on the President as not moving fast enough, and harped on the fact there will still be more troops in Afghanistan than there were when he was inaugurated. Of course, they'll conveniently ignore the fact that his predecessor never even sent the recommended number of troops to either Afghanistan or Iraq in the first place.
On the right, the members of the 101st Kowardly Keyboard Kommandos' Chickenhawk Division immediately jumped to the idea that ANY significant troop reduction is a choice between a safe America and an unsafe America. As we've noted before, we'll never know if they'd feel the same way if they'd been the ones serving four or five tours of duty in war zones over the last decade, instead of living off the largess of their parents and others.
We're not even surprised at the general lack of reaction from Afghans and Pakistanis. Regardless of when we leave, the Afghans will likely revert back to their age-old habits of tribal squabbles and corruption. And Pakistanis still aren't sure killing Bin Laden was a good idea.
Everyone knows where they stand on this issue - and it's no different than it was before the President's address last night. The only thing that might surprise us about his speech is if we found someone who actually changed their opinion of the war after the President's address.
We won't hold our breath we'll find anyone like that.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Up In Smoke
When it comes to the combined idea of politicians and credibility, we're reminded of the old George Carlin jokes about "jumbo shrimp,", "business ethics" or "plastic glasses.". While the two ideas are not completely mutually exclusive, we can certainly understand how many Americans see the idea of a credible politician as something of a rare species. Many of the people on Capitol Hill who were screeching with righteous indignation for Congressman Anthony Weiner to resign (even though he did nothing illegal) still have little to say about Congressman David Vitter's solicitation of prostitution (which IS a crime), even several years later.
Take a look around - even the former main conductor of the "Straight Talk Express" seems to have once again singed his own credibility, after taking his tongue for a walk right into the tinder-dry thickets of arguably racist comments.
We admit that there's a lot of evidence that speaks again John McCain being a racist, not the least of which is the Senator's adopted daughter, Bridget. Still, a long-time veteran of the political process like McCain should know that just one unguarded or poorly phrased statement can be misconstrued, inflated, and come to dominate the news cycle. Even things not specifically stated - like McCain's adoption of a daughter from Bangladesh - can be twisted to make a political figure appear to be something they're not, as Karl Rove did to McCain back in 2000.
Unfortunately, just being aware of the pitfalls of a media environment that is constantly salivating for more juicy content isn't enough to protect someone from sometimes triggering a media feeding frenzy - which is exactly what Senator McCain has done over the last few days.
At a press conference last weekend, Mr. McCain made some comments about both wildfires and immigrants that - frankly - may have appeared racist to people who only saw clips of the press conference, or even read his main quotes. Those comments could easily be interpreted as inflammatory by a media consumer who isn't fully informed about the problems that affect the Senator's home state of Arizona, or even those who may not have seen the entire press conference.
The problem with Sen. McCain's credibility on this issue is that his media assistants seem to have forgotten how charged and primed the media environment surrounding his state is, with respect to any racial comment. The fallout created by SB 1070 still hasn't been settled, nor have the immigration challenges facing border states. These are all things that Mr. McCain is well aware of.
Sadly, in today's media environment, facts cannot always extinguish the blaze of inflammatory comments taken out of context in a 140-character world. That may have once been the case - and we still believe wholeheartedly in basing our viewpoints on facts. But going on the Today Show and saying that he was, "…puzzled ... that there should be any controversy," didn't help Mr. McCain's credibility. In fact, it may have hurt him, as some people now see him in the same light that they see Grandpa Simpson - old and out of touch.
We have family in Arizona - and we understand that what the Senator was saying may have some embers of truth to it. After all, fires in the desert are used for all the things he said immigrants use them for - as signals, to keep warm, and as diversions - by both immigrants and citizens alike.
The real burn for Mr. McCain - not to mention his staff - seems to be the inability to put out this kind of media firestorm.
Public figures take note: when you spark a flame with an offhand, easily misunderstood comment, apologize, and walk away. You may indeed have the facts on your side, but as one of our staff members has been known to say, "Do you want to be right, or do you want to get your message across?"
Take a look around - even the former main conductor of the "Straight Talk Express" seems to have once again singed his own credibility, after taking his tongue for a walk right into the tinder-dry thickets of arguably racist comments.
We admit that there's a lot of evidence that speaks again John McCain being a racist, not the least of which is the Senator's adopted daughter, Bridget. Still, a long-time veteran of the political process like McCain should know that just one unguarded or poorly phrased statement can be misconstrued, inflated, and come to dominate the news cycle. Even things not specifically stated - like McCain's adoption of a daughter from Bangladesh - can be twisted to make a political figure appear to be something they're not, as Karl Rove did to McCain back in 2000.
Unfortunately, just being aware of the pitfalls of a media environment that is constantly salivating for more juicy content isn't enough to protect someone from sometimes triggering a media feeding frenzy - which is exactly what Senator McCain has done over the last few days.
At a press conference last weekend, Mr. McCain made some comments about both wildfires and immigrants that - frankly - may have appeared racist to people who only saw clips of the press conference, or even read his main quotes. Those comments could easily be interpreted as inflammatory by a media consumer who isn't fully informed about the problems that affect the Senator's home state of Arizona, or even those who may not have seen the entire press conference.
The problem with Sen. McCain's credibility on this issue is that his media assistants seem to have forgotten how charged and primed the media environment surrounding his state is, with respect to any racial comment. The fallout created by SB 1070 still hasn't been settled, nor have the immigration challenges facing border states. These are all things that Mr. McCain is well aware of.
Sadly, in today's media environment, facts cannot always extinguish the blaze of inflammatory comments taken out of context in a 140-character world. That may have once been the case - and we still believe wholeheartedly in basing our viewpoints on facts. But going on the Today Show and saying that he was, "…puzzled ... that there should be any controversy," didn't help Mr. McCain's credibility. In fact, it may have hurt him, as some people now see him in the same light that they see Grandpa Simpson - old and out of touch.
We have family in Arizona - and we understand that what the Senator was saying may have some embers of truth to it. After all, fires in the desert are used for all the things he said immigrants use them for - as signals, to keep warm, and as diversions - by both immigrants and citizens alike.
The real burn for Mr. McCain - not to mention his staff - seems to be the inability to put out this kind of media firestorm.
Public figures take note: when you spark a flame with an offhand, easily misunderstood comment, apologize, and walk away. You may indeed have the facts on your side, but as one of our staff members has been known to say, "Do you want to be right, or do you want to get your message across?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)