Fair enough, but I don't think the audiences for Rolling Stone and the NY Times are even remotely the same. I am not concerned at all with what the NY Times or Time Magazine put on their covers. Time is a news magazine and no one would mistake it for anything other than that. The same cannot be said for Rolling Stone regardless of whatever reporting it may have done over the years. Stillwater wasn't trying to get on the cover of Time or the NY Times.
Time isnt a news magazine. I think thats incorrect. Its a tool used to make money. Time doesnt, and RS doesnt either for that matter, aim to educate the public. Its a marketing ploy, nothing else. Just as ABC news is. As Dylan said
"If I want to find out anything, I’m not going to read Time magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek. I’m not going to read any of these magazines. I mean, because they’ve just got too much to lose by printing the truth"
He said that 50 years ago. Fail to see how that isnt as relevant in 2013 as it was in 1964.
Time isnt a news magazine, and its sad if people mistake it for such. The truth isnt found in it. The content is the ads. Just as it is in any magazine. The filler is the articles. Just as network tv is commercials. the filler is the actual show.
Time isnt out to educate us on anything. They dont care. Why would they?
I am not going to argue with you over what Time magazine is. If you choose to believe it and Rolling Stone are the same, go right ahead.
I don't think anyone was calling for banning or censorship...are they? If so, I've missed it.
But, I think it's a fine thing - more than a fine thing - to call out anyone pandering to (or contributing to) the lowest common denominator.
And - speaking about this, discussing it, doesn't automatically imply that one doesn't give a shit or two about other similar issues. That's a broad and unfair assumption to make.
It does because the media outcry and backlash about this has been way over the top. Im not seeing similar threads about other media outlets, and in terms of media, im not seeing ABC news discussing other outlets either.
Fine, lets call things out. But lets do it across the board. Lets not sit here and pretend todays largest newspapers right now dont do the same exact thing. In todays editions!
Its about seeing a bigger picture. All media is a choice. And its clear to anyone with a heartbeat, that the media isnt out there for us. Its there to make money and generate profits. Thats it.
So yeah, I do think its obscenely myopic to pick and choose. Lets get pissed off about the media, but lets do it in a systemic way. All of them are vultures.
Its like the Kanye stuff. He's gotten alot of crap for his sexist lyrics. And he's been made a scapegoat for it. Do I think we as a society need to deal with sexism? Absolutely. But the hype around it seemed to suggest naively that if we only ban our children from listening to Kanyes gross lyrics that somehow sexism and explotiation of women would be somehow addressed in a real manner. Thats a terribly simplistic view to have. Id say the same thing about that. We address sexism and explotiation in the same manner. We deal with it in a systemic and fundamental way. We dont single out a single person as being a scapegoat.
It does because the media outcry and backlash about this has been way over the top. Im not seeing similar threads about other media outlets, and in terms of media, im not seeing ABC news discussing other outlets either.
Fine, lets call things out. But lets do it across the board. Lets not sit here and pretend todays largest newspapers right now dont do the same exact thing. In todays editions!
Its about seeing a bigger picture. All media is a choice. And its clear to anyone with a heartbeat, that the media isnt out there for us. Its there to make money and generate profits. Thats it.
So yeah, I do think its obscenely myopic to pick and choose. Lets get pissed off about the media, but lets do it in a systemic way. All of them are vultures.
Its like the Kanye stuff. He's gotten alot of crap for his sexist lyrics. And he's been made a scapegoat for it. Do I think we as a society need to deal with sexism? Absolutely. But the hype around it seemed to suggest naively that if we only ban our children from listening to Kanyes gross lyrics that somehow sexism and explotiation of women would be somehow addressed in a real manner. Thats a terribly simplistic view to have. Id say the same thing about that. We address sexism and explotiation in the same manner. We deal with it in a systemic and fundamental way. We dont single out a single person as being a scapegoat.
Dude, I get your point...but again, you're making assumptions. We're discussing this cover, this publication. Other so-called outlets have been and are discussed - even in (gasp) real life.
btw, I can think Kanye is a piece of shit without mentioning every other person I think is a piece of shit in the same breath. I'd rather read/listen to specifics instead of generalizations.
And again - I'm not for banning anything. No one benefits from hands over their ears and eyes (or mind, for that matter).
Though U.S. media stars will undoubtedly rush to heap praise on Halberstam, his views on the proper role of journalism could not be any farther from what they do.
By Glenn Greenwald
Tuesday, Apr 24, 2007
David Halberstam’s death yesterday is certain to prompt all sorts of homage from our media stars describing Halberstam as a superior journalist, someone who embodied what journalism ought to be. And it is true that he was exactly that.
But modern American journalists — as Halberstam himself repeatedly emphasized — have become the precise antithesis of those values. The functions Halberstam and the best journalists of his generation fulfilled are exactly those that have been so fundamentally abandoned, repudiated and scorned by our nation’s most prominent and influential media stars. And most legitimate media criticisms today are grounded in exactly that gaping discrepancy.
In several of the posts below, I have posted just a few excerpts from what I think are among the best essays and interviews from Halberstam over the past several years. But let us begin with his understanding of the intended role of political journalism and contrast that with how our current press functions:
On the adversarial relationship between journalists and political officials
David Halberstam, Speech to the Columbia School of Journalism, May 18, 2005:
"One of the things I learned, the easiest of lessons, was that the better you do your job, often going against conventional mores, the less popular you are likely to be. (So, if you seek popularity, this is probably not the profession for you.) . . . .
There are a few things I would like to pass on to you as I come near to the end of my career.
One: It’s not about fame. By and large, the more famous you are, the less of a journalist you are. Besides, fame does not last. At its best, it is about being paid to learn. For fifty years, I have been paid to go out and ask questions. What a great privilege to be a free reporter in a free society, to be someone whose job is a search for knowledge. What a rare chance to grow as a person. . . .
I want to leave you today with one bit of advice: never, never, never, let them intimidate you. People are always going to try in all kinds of ways. Sheriffs, generals, presidents of universities, presidents of countries, secretaries of defense. Don’t let them do it. . . .
Probably the moment I am proudest of in my career is this: By the fall of 1963, I was one of a small group of reporters in Saigon — we had enraged Washington and Saigon by filing pessimistic dispatches on the war. In particular, my young colleague, Neil Sheehan, and I were considered the enemy. The president of the United States, JFK, had already asked the publisher to pull me.
On day that fall, there was a major battle in the Delta (the Americans were not yet in a full combat role; they were in an advising and support role). MACV — the American military command — tried to keep out all reporters so they could control the information. Neil and I spent the day pushing hard to get there — calling everyone, including Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and General Paul Harkins. With no luck, of course.
In those days, the military had a daily late afternoon briefing given by a major or a Captain, called the Five O’clock Follies, because of the generally low value of the information.
On this particular day, the briefing was different, given not by a Major but by a Major General, Dick Stilwell, the smoothest young general in Saigon. It was in a different room and every general and every bird Colonel in the country was there. Picture if you will rather small room, about the size of a classroom, with about 10 or 12 reporters there in the center of the room. And in the back, and outside, some 40 military officers, all of them big time brass. It was clearly an attempt to intimidate us.
General Stilwell tried to take the intimidation a step further. He began by saying that Neil and I had bothered General Harkins and Ambassador Lodge and other VIPs, and we were not to do it again. Period.
And I stood up, my heart beating wildly — and told him that we were not his corporals or privates, that we worked for The New York Times and UP and AP and Newsweek, not for the Department of Defense.
I said that we knew that 30 American helicopters and perhaps 150 American soldiers had gone into battle, and the American people had a right to know what happened. I went on to say that we would continue to press to go on missions and call Ambassador Lodge and General Harkins, but he could, if he chose, write to our editors telling them that we were being too aggressive, and were pushing much too hard to go into battle. That was certainly his right."
So: Never let them intimidate you. Never. If someone tries, do me a favor and work just a little harder on your story. Do two or three more interviews. Make your story a little better.
Elizabeth Bumiller of The New York Times, on the press’ coverage of President George W. Bush prior to the invasion of Iraq:
"I think we were very deferential, because in the East Room press conference, it’s live. It’s very intense. It’s frightening to stand up there. I mean, think about it. You are standing up on prime time live television, asking the president of the United States a question when the country is about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and I think it made — and you know, nobody wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time."
...On the collapse of the American press
David Halberstam — November 7, 1999:
"I thought that with the end of the century approaching, it might be a good time to take stock of where this profession is. Obviously, it should be a brilliant moment in American journalism, a time of a genuine flowering of a journalistic culture . . .
But the reverse is true. Those to whom the most is given, the executives of our three networks, have steadily moved away from their greatest responsibilities, which is using their news departments to tell the American people complicated truths, not only about their own country, but about the world around us. . . .
What I think is happening is something extremely serious,nothing less than a change in the value system in a very important part of the news business.
At the core of the old value system was a belief on the part of the men and women who worked in journalism that this was an uncommonly privileged life, that we did not do this for the money — almost all of us could have made a great deal more money in some other field, but we were uncommonly privileged, free men and free women working for a free press in a free society, beneficiaries of exalted constitutional freedoms, willing, if need be on occasion, to report to the nation things which it did not necessarily want to hear.
What has changed is not the talent and idealism and passion of the journalists out there, but the value system which governs the way they work, and finally what gets in the paper or on the air. . . .
A number of things stand out in the change of values which has come about in the last decade or so. Because of its growing power and influence and because of the ever-greater competition, not just network against network, but network against cable show, the television executive producers have redefined what constitutes news — often going for stories that television likes to cover, stories which are telegenic, because they have action or are sexy or are tabloid- or scandal-driven.
We have morphed in the larger culture from a somewhat Calvinist society to an entertainment society, and that is reflected in the new norms of television journalism — where the greatest sin is not to be wrong but to be boring. Because boring means low ratings. And so altogether too many people at the top in the television newsrooms have accepted the new, frillier dictates of the men and women above them in the corporations.
But the quantum change had come with the coming of cable, and the fierce new competition generated by cable news shows, which were primarily about sex, scandal and celebrity. Or celebrity, sex and scandal. Soon, we began to see a willingness on the part of the networks — their own audience fragmenting, their ratings down — to embrace, particularly in their magazines, these tabloid values as their own.
Magazines which were essentially tabloid were inexpensive to produce, more so than sitcoms, seemed to have acceptable ratings, and so they proliferated under the guise of being news. And a great many of our colleagues went along with it — for immense salaries and a great deal of air time, of course. . . .
Somewhere in there, gradually, but systematically, there has been an abdication of responsibility within the profession, most particularly in the networks.
Television’s gatekeepers, at a time when a fragmenting audience threatens the singular profits of the past, stopped being gatekeepers and began to look the other way on moral and ethical and journalistic issues. Less and less did they accept the old-fashioned charge for what they owed the country.
The viewpoint seemed to be — from their testing and polling — that the American people did not want to know what was going on, so why bother them with unwanted facts too soon? So, if we look at the media today, we ought to be aware not just of what we are getting, but what we are not getting; the difference between what is authentic and what is inauthentic in contemporary American life and in the world, with a warning that in this celebrity culture, the forces of the inauthentic are becoming more powerful all the time."
I am not going to argue with you over what Time magazine is. If you choose to believe it and Rolling Stone are the same, go right ahead.
To further your point: Of the 100 Rolling Stone covers prior to the most recent one, only 5 were non-pop culture related. One in 2010 about climate change that only featured text, three of Obama (2 leading up to the 2012 election), and one a caricature of Romney (also leading up to the 2012 election). The rest range from the Stones and McCartney to Justin Bieber (twice) and Snookie. If Rolling Stone wants to hang their hat on investigative journalism they have a funny way of marketing to that.
Im as pissed off about the media in reguards to their total silence on drone attacks, gitmo, NSA, the economy, as I am about this.
You mean the govt's total silence.
I mean both. The gov't is the ones who are committing the atrocities. They obviously arent going to say anything. Its not like obamas gonna say "we drone bombed a village today and killed 100 civilians. Its the medias job to report it. And give us the facts. But they failed us during the Bush years too. Just as they are doing under Obama.
Its the media job to be muckrakers and be looking for facts. As I said a day ago, the media doesnt do that. You can't be buddy buddy with Obama during the campaign and go call him a war criminal in your reports. And that obvious doesnt happen. The media is buddy buddy with them, and then write glowing reports.
Look at the press conferences. If I was a reporter id be asking questions every day about drones and NSA to obama and his press secretary. But what happens if I do? I dont get called on and the president refuses to grant me interviews.
I am not going to argue with you over what Time magazine is. If you choose to believe it and Rolling Stone are the same, go right ahead.
To further your point: Of the 100 Rolling Stone covers prior to the most recent one, only 5 were non-pop culture related. One in 2010 about climate change that only featured text, three of Obama (2 leading up to the 2012 election), and one a caricature of Romney (also leading up to the 2012 election). The rest range from the Stones and McCartney to Justin Bieber (twice) and Snookie. If Rolling Stone wants to hang their hat on investigative journalism they have a funny way of marketing to that.
Im not willing to call Time anything other than what it is. If you want to pretend its some real in depth reporting going on, go ahead. But you do so at your own risk. When was the last time Time exposed anything? At least with RS its a relevant magazine, somewhat, and covers people we know or care about. Time's last breakthrough in depth investigation was in what? 1990? 1980?
You are kidding yourself if you think Time is anything other than what everything else is.
Its shocking to me someone would believe a magazines goal is anything other than the bottom line.
Time, as dylan says, have too much to lose by printing the truth. Imagine if next month, the magazine, focused on the truth. Focused on class disparity, people losing their homes and jobs, if they talked to victims of drone attacks, if they talked to Gitmo prisoners about abuse, if they talked to inner city youth about racism and police brutality. You can hold your breath for that type of magazine.
The fact is basic. Magazines, like tv are about ads. The show and interviews are irrelavant. The content is the ads. Thats not some commie socialist rant. Thats basic fact.
Im as pissed off about the media in reguards to their total silence on drone attacks, gitmo, NSA, the economy, as I am about this.
You mean the govt's total silence.
I mean both. The gov't is the ones who are committing the atrocities. They obviously arent going to say anything. Its not like obamas gonna say "we drone bombed a village today and killed 100 civilians. Its the medias job to report it. And give us the facts. But they failed us during the Bush years too. Just as they are doing under Obama.
Its the media job to be muckrakers and be looking for facts. As I said a day ago, the media doesnt do that. You can't be buddy buddy with Obama during the campaign and go call him a war criminal in your reports. And that obvious doesnt happen. The media is buddy buddy with them, and then write glowing reports.
Look at the press conferences. If I was a reporter id be asking questions every day about drones and NSA to obama and his press secretary. But what happens if I do? I dont get called on and the president refuses to grant me interviews.
Please, please, please. You have got to realize that your preconceived notions about the media, and govt is just not accurate. Go back and re-read (and digest) all of my posts. Read that article that Byrnzie posted. You're not reading a word that anyone writes. :fp:
So do you. unless Im reading it wrong, you view this cover as a bad thing, and a shameful, shameless thing. My question is, if thats the case, why havent you, and everyone else, started a thread denouncing the NY Times and other media outlets not only for putting the Bomber on the covers of their media forums, but for putting serial killers, murderers, rapists, presidents who are all 3 of those, etc...
For me, this is an inane issue. its putting a bandaid on a car crash victim and saying it matters. It doesnt. Tool and Maynard would agree with me. This is about society and systemic issues. Banning a RS doesnt do anything. It just doesnt. Its censorship for one. And two, it doesnt deal with the real issue of figuring out why it happened and preventing it. Nor does it respect the victims. They deserve justice, figuring out why it happened, and making sure nothing like it happens again.
Our society wants simple answers. We smugly sit by and think banning swear words and violence in hip hop, or nude girls in Grand Theft Auto actually does something. And we pat ourselves on the back. But it does nothing.
Again, im not into it. Im just sick of it. We dont need a few laws changed. Or congress to do this. Or senate to do that. We need systemic, radical fundamental change, focused on how we as a society view, consume, engage with violence, war, death etc... Thats not acheived by banning or condemning RS.
And that begins with realizing RS is no different than the local news or CNN or Time, or any of it. Any attempt to seperate them is just playing tennis without the net.
1. You need to figure out how to work the quote feature so that your responses don't come out in hieroglyphic form.
2. You're getting a little dramatic. I don't think it is out of line to be critical of a magazine dedicated to Rock and Roll jumping genres and featuring the Boston Bomber like a sexy Bob Geldof on their cover.
3. I think the RS cover was in bad form because it was an obvious marketing ploy. As scathing as you have been about the media... I think this falls in line with what you have expressed. It is yet another ploy by corporate media to market their product and sell magazines. They stepped outside their typical genre and have attempted to cash in on the emotions for public enemy number one. Why do you feel the need to come to their defence, yet attack every other media source at the same time. You would think, given some of the things you express, that you would be happy people are a little irritated by the cover.
4. The rest of the post is kind of weird in a rambling way. Who said anything about banning RS? Maynard, Tool, and you knowing what this is really about? Grand Theft Auto? Ignorant people seeking simplicity? Laws being changed? Yikes. This reads like a smoothie: little bits of every topic known to man all blended into one response... yet not enough of one thing to discern itself from the rest of the mix.
5. Good luck with the pursuit of your avatar. Seriously.
I am not going to argue with you over what Time magazine is. If you choose to believe it and Rolling Stone are the same, go right ahead.
To further your point: Of the 100 Rolling Stone covers prior to the most recent one, only 5 were non-pop culture related. One in 2010 about climate change that only featured text, three of Obama (2 leading up to the 2012 election), and one a caricature of Romney (also leading up to the 2012 election). The rest range from the Stones and McCartney to Justin Bieber (twice) and Snookie. If Rolling Stone wants to hang their hat on investigative journalism they have a funny way of marketing to that.
Yes and yes.
I loved what Louis C.K. said about this last night on the Daily Show...
John Oliver: "Rolling Stone has called you both the funniest comedian in America and a jerkoff genius... Which title would you like on your headstone?"
Louis C.K.: "Well they put that kid on the cover that blew up Boston so fuck them…"
I am not going to argue with you over what Time magazine is. If you choose to believe it and Rolling Stone are the same, go right ahead.
To further your point: Of the 100 Rolling Stone covers prior to the most recent one, only 5 were non-pop culture related. One in 2010 about climate change that only featured text, three of Obama (2 leading up to the 2012 election), and one a caricature of Romney (also leading up to the 2012 election). The rest range from the Stones and McCartney to Justin Bieber (twice) and Snookie. If Rolling Stone wants to hang their hat on investigative journalism they have a funny way of marketing to that.
Im not willing to call Time anything other than what it is. If you want to pretend its some real in depth reporting going on, go ahead. But you do so at your own risk. When was the last time Time exposed anything? At least with RS its a relevant magazine, somewhat, and covers people we know or care about. Time's last breakthrough in depth investigation was in what? 1990? 1980?
You are kidding yourself if you think Time is anything other than what everything else is.
Its shocking to me someone would believe a magazines goal is anything other than the bottom line.
Time, as dylan says, have too much to lose by printing the truth. Imagine if next month, the magazine, focused on the truth. Focused on class disparity, people losing their homes and jobs, if they talked to victims of drone attacks, if they talked to Gitmo prisoners about abuse, if they talked to inner city youth about racism and police brutality. You can hold your breath for that type of magazine.
The fact is basic. Magazines, like tv are about ads. The show and interviews are irrelavant. The content is the ads. Thats not some commie socialist rant. Thats basic fact.
I agree with you that Time is shit and magazines exist for ads. This is more about how periodicals position themselves and why the reaction to Rolling Stone was what it was. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I understand why people were upset.
but is no one interested in this kid's story? ... in that a kid with many friends could do something like this?
He is clearly a sociopath in my opinion. He tweeted LOL after the bombing to a friend that said he looked like the suspect. Heck, he ran his brother down with an SUV on purpose while trying to get some cops at the same time.
I think the brother had the anger issues fueled by religious propoganda. This guy is a stone cold killer that went along for the ride.
but is no one interested in this kid's story? ... in that a kid with many friends could do something like this?
I am. Have the issue, but haven't read the story yet. I think it's worthwhile to discuss the content of the story and the decision to put him on the cover separately. If you want to dig into the story, start a thread and make the distinction in the subject clear.
but is no one interested in this kid's story? ... in that a kid with many friends could do something like this?
I am slightly, but getting it from RS is like getting a cheeseburger at a Chinese food buffet.
thing is ... if it's there - it must mean people eat it ...
The jack-of-all-trades restaurant!
If you think it's a good idea... maybe we should think about pooling some 10C members' cash together and begin franchising. We can call the joint Polaris's.
Chadwick can work the door. Byrnzie could be the maître d'.
If you think it's a good idea... maybe we should think about pooling some 10C members' cash together and begin franchising. We can call the joint Polaris's.
Chadwick can work the door. Byrnzie could be the maître d'.
the moving train restaurant ... :corn:
definitely not putting you in charge of accounting ...
If you think it's a good idea... maybe we should think about pooling some 10C members' cash together and begin franchising. We can call the joint Polaris's.
Chadwick can work the door. Byrnzie could be the maître d'.
the moving train restaurant ... :corn:
definitely not putting you in charge of accounting ...
but is no one interested in this kid's story? ... in that a kid with many friends could do something like this?
He is clearly a sociopath in my opinion. He tweeted LOL after the bombing to a friend that said he looked like the suspect. Heck, he ran his brother down with an SUV on purpose while trying to get some cops at the same time.
I think the brother had the anger issues fueled by religious propoganda. This guy is a stone cold killer that went along for the ride.
just a point of fact...i have a close friend whose dad was an arresting officer and there the night of the shootout (amongst a bunch of random but close connects to the whole deal) and his brother was shot dead and not run over with the SUV. his brother was killed and his little bro pulled away, then USA was painted the older brothers blood after. of course i'm not an officer of the law and don't know how i would have acted in that situation, and for me to lay blame or anything would be stupid. i just want this to be known.
I am not going to argue with you over what Time magazine is. If you choose to believe it and Rolling Stone are the same, go right ahead.
To further your point: Of the 100 Rolling Stone covers prior to the most recent one, only 5 were non-pop culture related. One in 2010 about climate change that only featured text, three of Obama (2 leading up to the 2012 election), and one a caricature of Romney (also leading up to the 2012 election). The rest range from the Stones and McCartney to Justin Bieber (twice) and Snookie. If Rolling Stone wants to hang their hat on investigative journalism they have a funny way of marketing to that.
Regardless of what they put on the cover, every one of their magazines contains an article on politics/current affairs.
I am not going to argue with you over what Time magazine is. If you choose to believe it and Rolling Stone are the same, go right ahead.
To further your point: Of the 100 Rolling Stone covers prior to the most recent one, only 5 were non-pop culture related. One in 2010 about climate change that only featured text, three of Obama (2 leading up to the 2012 election), and one a caricature of Romney (also leading up to the 2012 election). The rest range from the Stones and McCartney to Justin Bieber (twice) and Snookie. If Rolling Stone wants to hang their hat on investigative journalism they have a funny way of marketing to that.
Regardless of what they put on the cover, every one of their magazines contains an article on politics/current affairs.
As a subscriber for as long as I can remember, I'm well aware of the magazine's contents. It's not the majority of the content and it's not how they market themselves. That is why this bugs people.
Haven't read the feature yet, but an ironic couple of lines from Peter Travers's Pacific Rim review in the same issue. Speaking about the humans who pilot the robots:
"You need two pilots who connect their minds on a neural bridge called "the Drift." Make the wrong move and your brain explodes. Succeed and you're a rock star on the cover of Rolling Stone."
That speaks to the perception the general public has of the magazine and the brand the publishers have chosen to build.
Haven't read the feature yet, but an ironic couple of lines from Peter Travers's Pacific Rim review in the same issue. Speaking about the humans who pilot the robots:
"You need two pilots who connect their minds on a neural bridge called "the Drift." Make the wrong move and your brain explodes. Succeed and you're a rock star on the cover of Rolling Stone."
That speaks to the perception the general public has of the magazine and the brand the publishers have chosen to build.
It's like the old Sesame Street song: One of these things is not like the others... One of these things just doesn't belong.
Dave Grohl, Ozzy Osbourne, David Bowie, Bruno Mars, Rihanna, Billie Joe, and ... Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
The piece is supposed to be outstanding, but placed on the cover and within the RS is most certainly a reach for a magazine that predominantly covers pop culture and music. Does anyone disagree that this is about marketing and magazine sales? The cheap ploy is what has people a little ticked off- a music magazine capitalizing on public enemy number one's face.
I'm never going to buy that the RS staff sat about in a Monday morning meeting with an editor demanding an informative piece on the Boston Bomber because that's what their readers have come to expect and demand from their product. I see a much different meeting with people frothing and licking their chops at the expected spike in sales. While this might be fair enough and within the magazine's rights... it doesn't mean that people can't be critical of the jump from the norm seeking profit.
It's like the old Sesame Street song: One of these things is not like the others... One of these things just doesn't belong.
Dave Grohl, Ozzy Osbourne, David Bowie, Bruno Mars, Rihanna, Billie Joe, and ... Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
The piece is supposed to be outstanding, but placed on the cover and within the RS is most certainly a reach for a magazine that predominantly covers pop culture and music. Does anyone disagree that this is about marketing and magazine sales? The cheap ploy is what has people a little ticked off- a music magazine capitalizing on public enemy number one's face.
I'm never going to buy that the RS staff sat about in a Monday morning meeting with an editor demanding an informative piece on the Boston Bomber because that's what their readers have come to expect and demand from their product. I see a much different meeting with people frothing and licking their chops at the expected spike in sales. While this might be fair enough and within the magazine's rights... it doesn't mean that people can't be critical of the jump from the norm seeking profit.
what magazine isn't about sales?
i think the criticisms of the piece seems to now simply be the picture they chose to use ... not necessarily the article just the supposed glamourization of the suspect ...
although i agree - everyone has a right to their opinion on the tastefulness of the cover and the piece itself but i do find it strange that someone would blast the magazine on the basis of profits and sales ...
also - the mainstream media has failed the public ... it rarely investigates critically and informs the public anymore ... and people are now reliant on non-traditional outlets for the kind of work that used to be done by newspapers and news outlets ... the first question everyone should have asked after the bombings after who is why ... no one seems to care about why ... only payback ...
Comments
I am not going to argue with you over what Time magazine is. If you choose to believe it and Rolling Stone are the same, go right ahead.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
It does because the media outcry and backlash about this has been way over the top. Im not seeing similar threads about other media outlets, and in terms of media, im not seeing ABC news discussing other outlets either.
Fine, lets call things out. But lets do it across the board. Lets not sit here and pretend todays largest newspapers right now dont do the same exact thing. In todays editions!
Its about seeing a bigger picture. All media is a choice. And its clear to anyone with a heartbeat, that the media isnt out there for us. Its there to make money and generate profits. Thats it.
So yeah, I do think its obscenely myopic to pick and choose. Lets get pissed off about the media, but lets do it in a systemic way. All of them are vultures.
Its like the Kanye stuff. He's gotten alot of crap for his sexist lyrics. And he's been made a scapegoat for it. Do I think we as a society need to deal with sexism? Absolutely. But the hype around it seemed to suggest naively that if we only ban our children from listening to Kanyes gross lyrics that somehow sexism and explotiation of women would be somehow addressed in a real manner. Thats a terribly simplistic view to have. Id say the same thing about that. We address sexism and explotiation in the same manner. We deal with it in a systemic and fundamental way. We dont single out a single person as being a scapegoat.
btw, I can think Kanye is a piece of shit without mentioning every other person I think is a piece of shit in the same breath. I'd rather read/listen to specifics instead of generalizations.
And again - I'm not for banning anything. No one benefits from hands over their ears and eyes (or mind, for that matter).
You mean the govt's total silence.
David Halberstam on today’s American press
Though U.S. media stars will undoubtedly rush to heap praise on Halberstam, his views on the proper role of journalism could not be any farther from what they do.
By Glenn Greenwald
Tuesday, Apr 24, 2007
David Halberstam’s death yesterday is certain to prompt all sorts of homage from our media stars describing Halberstam as a superior journalist, someone who embodied what journalism ought to be. And it is true that he was exactly that.
But modern American journalists — as Halberstam himself repeatedly emphasized — have become the precise antithesis of those values. The functions Halberstam and the best journalists of his generation fulfilled are exactly those that have been so fundamentally abandoned, repudiated and scorned by our nation’s most prominent and influential media stars. And most legitimate media criticisms today are grounded in exactly that gaping discrepancy.
In several of the posts below, I have posted just a few excerpts from what I think are among the best essays and interviews from Halberstam over the past several years. But let us begin with his understanding of the intended role of political journalism and contrast that with how our current press functions:
On the adversarial relationship between journalists and political officials
David Halberstam, Speech to the Columbia School of Journalism, May 18, 2005:
"One of the things I learned, the easiest of lessons, was that the better you do your job, often going against conventional mores, the less popular you are likely to be. (So, if you seek popularity, this is probably not the profession for you.) . . . .
There are a few things I would like to pass on to you as I come near to the end of my career.
One: It’s not about fame. By and large, the more famous you are, the less of a journalist you are. Besides, fame does not last. At its best, it is about being paid to learn. For fifty years, I have been paid to go out and ask questions. What a great privilege to be a free reporter in a free society, to be someone whose job is a search for knowledge. What a rare chance to grow as a person. . . .
I want to leave you today with one bit of advice: never, never, never, let them intimidate you. People are always going to try in all kinds of ways. Sheriffs, generals, presidents of universities, presidents of countries, secretaries of defense. Don’t let them do it. . . .
Probably the moment I am proudest of in my career is this: By the fall of 1963, I was one of a small group of reporters in Saigon — we had enraged Washington and Saigon by filing pessimistic dispatches on the war. In particular, my young colleague, Neil Sheehan, and I were considered the enemy. The president of the United States, JFK, had already asked the publisher to pull me.
On day that fall, there was a major battle in the Delta (the Americans were not yet in a full combat role; they were in an advising and support role). MACV — the American military command — tried to keep out all reporters so they could control the information. Neil and I spent the day pushing hard to get there — calling everyone, including Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and General Paul Harkins. With no luck, of course.
In those days, the military had a daily late afternoon briefing given by a major or a Captain, called the Five O’clock Follies, because of the generally low value of the information.
On this particular day, the briefing was different, given not by a Major but by a Major General, Dick Stilwell, the smoothest young general in Saigon. It was in a different room and every general and every bird Colonel in the country was there. Picture if you will rather small room, about the size of a classroom, with about 10 or 12 reporters there in the center of the room. And in the back, and outside, some 40 military officers, all of them big time brass. It was clearly an attempt to intimidate us.
General Stilwell tried to take the intimidation a step further. He began by saying that Neil and I had bothered General Harkins and Ambassador Lodge and other VIPs, and we were not to do it again. Period.
And I stood up, my heart beating wildly — and told him that we were not his corporals or privates, that we worked for The New York Times and UP and AP and Newsweek, not for the Department of Defense.
I said that we knew that 30 American helicopters and perhaps 150 American soldiers had gone into battle, and the American people had a right to know what happened. I went on to say that we would continue to press to go on missions and call Ambassador Lodge and General Harkins, but he could, if he chose, write to our editors telling them that we were being too aggressive, and were pushing much too hard to go into battle. That was certainly his right."
So: Never let them intimidate you. Never. If someone tries, do me a favor and work just a little harder on your story. Do two or three more interviews. Make your story a little better.
Elizabeth Bumiller of The New York Times, on the press’ coverage of President George W. Bush prior to the invasion of Iraq:
"I think we were very deferential, because in the East Room press conference, it’s live. It’s very intense. It’s frightening to stand up there. I mean, think about it. You are standing up on prime time live television, asking the president of the United States a question when the country is about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and I think it made — and you know, nobody wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time."
...On the collapse of the American press
David Halberstam — November 7, 1999:
"I thought that with the end of the century approaching, it might be a good time to take stock of where this profession is. Obviously, it should be a brilliant moment in American journalism, a time of a genuine flowering of a journalistic culture . . .
But the reverse is true. Those to whom the most is given, the executives of our three networks, have steadily moved away from their greatest responsibilities, which is using their news departments to tell the American people complicated truths, not only about their own country, but about the world around us. . . .
What I think is happening is something extremely serious,nothing less than a change in the value system in a very important part of the news business.
At the core of the old value system was a belief on the part of the men and women who worked in journalism that this was an uncommonly privileged life, that we did not do this for the money — almost all of us could have made a great deal more money in some other field, but we were uncommonly privileged, free men and free women working for a free press in a free society, beneficiaries of exalted constitutional freedoms, willing, if need be on occasion, to report to the nation things which it did not necessarily want to hear.
What has changed is not the talent and idealism and passion of the journalists out there, but the value system which governs the way they work, and finally what gets in the paper or on the air. . . .
A number of things stand out in the change of values which has come about in the last decade or so. Because of its growing power and influence and because of the ever-greater competition, not just network against network, but network against cable show, the television executive producers have redefined what constitutes news — often going for stories that television likes to cover, stories which are telegenic, because they have action or are sexy or are tabloid- or scandal-driven.
We have morphed in the larger culture from a somewhat Calvinist society to an entertainment society, and that is reflected in the new norms of television journalism — where the greatest sin is not to be wrong but to be boring. Because boring means low ratings. And so altogether too many people at the top in the television newsrooms have accepted the new, frillier dictates of the men and women above them in the corporations.
But the quantum change had come with the coming of cable, and the fierce new competition generated by cable news shows, which were primarily about sex, scandal and celebrity. Or celebrity, sex and scandal. Soon, we began to see a willingness on the part of the networks — their own audience fragmenting, their ratings down — to embrace, particularly in their magazines, these tabloid values as their own.
Magazines which were essentially tabloid were inexpensive to produce, more so than sitcoms, seemed to have acceptable ratings, and so they proliferated under the guise of being news. And a great many of our colleagues went along with it — for immense salaries and a great deal of air time, of course. . . .
Somewhere in there, gradually, but systematically, there has been an abdication of responsibility within the profession, most particularly in the networks.
Television’s gatekeepers, at a time when a fragmenting audience threatens the singular profits of the past, stopped being gatekeepers and began to look the other way on moral and ethical and journalistic issues. Less and less did they accept the old-fashioned charge for what they owed the country.
The viewpoint seemed to be — from their testing and polling — that the American people did not want to know what was going on, so why bother them with unwanted facts too soon? So, if we look at the media today, we ought to be aware not just of what we are getting, but what we are not getting; the difference between what is authentic and what is inauthentic in contemporary American life and in the world, with a warning that in this celebrity culture, the forces of the inauthentic are becoming more powerful all the time."
To further your point: Of the 100 Rolling Stone covers prior to the most recent one, only 5 were non-pop culture related. One in 2010 about climate change that only featured text, three of Obama (2 leading up to the 2012 election), and one a caricature of Romney (also leading up to the 2012 election). The rest range from the Stones and McCartney to Justin Bieber (twice) and Snookie. If Rolling Stone wants to hang their hat on investigative journalism they have a funny way of marketing to that.
I mean both. The gov't is the ones who are committing the atrocities. They obviously arent going to say anything. Its not like obamas gonna say "we drone bombed a village today and killed 100 civilians. Its the medias job to report it. And give us the facts. But they failed us during the Bush years too. Just as they are doing under Obama.
Its the media job to be muckrakers and be looking for facts. As I said a day ago, the media doesnt do that. You can't be buddy buddy with Obama during the campaign and go call him a war criminal in your reports. And that obvious doesnt happen. The media is buddy buddy with them, and then write glowing reports.
Look at the press conferences. If I was a reporter id be asking questions every day about drones and NSA to obama and his press secretary. But what happens if I do? I dont get called on and the president refuses to grant me interviews.
Im not willing to call Time anything other than what it is. If you want to pretend its some real in depth reporting going on, go ahead. But you do so at your own risk. When was the last time Time exposed anything? At least with RS its a relevant magazine, somewhat, and covers people we know or care about. Time's last breakthrough in depth investigation was in what? 1990? 1980?
You are kidding yourself if you think Time is anything other than what everything else is.
Its shocking to me someone would believe a magazines goal is anything other than the bottom line.
Time, as dylan says, have too much to lose by printing the truth. Imagine if next month, the magazine, focused on the truth. Focused on class disparity, people losing their homes and jobs, if they talked to victims of drone attacks, if they talked to Gitmo prisoners about abuse, if they talked to inner city youth about racism and police brutality. You can hold your breath for that type of magazine.
The fact is basic. Magazines, like tv are about ads. The show and interviews are irrelavant. The content is the ads. Thats not some commie socialist rant. Thats basic fact.
Please, please, please. You have got to realize that your preconceived notions about the media, and govt is just not accurate. Go back and re-read (and digest) all of my posts. Read that article that Byrnzie posted. You're not reading a word that anyone writes. :fp:
1. You need to figure out how to work the quote feature so that your responses don't come out in hieroglyphic form.
2. You're getting a little dramatic. I don't think it is out of line to be critical of a magazine dedicated to Rock and Roll jumping genres and featuring the Boston Bomber like a sexy Bob Geldof on their cover.
3. I think the RS cover was in bad form because it was an obvious marketing ploy. As scathing as you have been about the media... I think this falls in line with what you have expressed. It is yet another ploy by corporate media to market their product and sell magazines. They stepped outside their typical genre and have attempted to cash in on the emotions for public enemy number one. Why do you feel the need to come to their defence, yet attack every other media source at the same time. You would think, given some of the things you express, that you would be happy people are a little irritated by the cover.
4. The rest of the post is kind of weird in a rambling way. Who said anything about banning RS? Maynard, Tool, and you knowing what this is really about? Grand Theft Auto? Ignorant people seeking simplicity? Laws being changed? Yikes. This reads like a smoothie: little bits of every topic known to man all blended into one response... yet not enough of one thing to discern itself from the rest of the mix.
5. Good luck with the pursuit of your avatar. Seriously.
Yes and yes.
I loved what Louis C.K. said about this last night on the Daily Show...
John Oliver: "Rolling Stone has called you both the funniest comedian in America and a jerkoff genius... Which title would you like on your headstone?"
Louis C.K.: "Well they put that kid on the cover that blew up Boston so fuck them…"
I agree with you that Time is shit and magazines exist for ads. This is more about how periodicals position themselves and why the reaction to Rolling Stone was what it was. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I understand why people were upset.
but is no one interested in this kid's story? ... in that a kid with many friends could do something like this?
I am slightly, but getting it from RS is like getting a cheeseburger at a Chinese food buffet.
I think the brother had the anger issues fueled by religious propoganda. This guy is a stone cold killer that went along for the ride.
I am. Have the issue, but haven't read the story yet. I think it's worthwhile to discuss the content of the story and the decision to put him on the cover separately. If you want to dig into the story, start a thread and make the distinction in the subject clear.
thing is ... if it's there - it must mean people eat it ...
The jack-of-all-trades restaurant!
If you think it's a good idea... maybe we should think about pooling some 10C members' cash together and begin franchising. We can call the joint Polaris's.
Chadwick can work the door. Byrnzie could be the maître d'.
the moving train restaurant ... :corn:
definitely not putting you in charge of accounting ...
Regardless of what they put on the cover, every one of their magazines contains an article on politics/current affairs.
Does that mean I'd have to smile at people? :twisted:
bouncer it is!
If it's a deal breaker... just be yourself then.
As a subscriber for as long as I can remember, I'm well aware of the magazine's contents. It's not the majority of the content and it's not how they market themselves. That is why this bugs people.
"You need two pilots who connect their minds on a neural bridge called "the Drift." Make the wrong move and your brain explodes. Succeed and you're a rock star on the cover of Rolling Stone."
That speaks to the perception the general public has of the magazine and the brand the publishers have chosen to build.
It's like the old Sesame Street song: One of these things is not like the others... One of these things just doesn't belong.
Dave Grohl, Ozzy Osbourne, David Bowie, Bruno Mars, Rihanna, Billie Joe, and ... Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
The piece is supposed to be outstanding, but placed on the cover and within the RS is most certainly a reach for a magazine that predominantly covers pop culture and music. Does anyone disagree that this is about marketing and magazine sales? The cheap ploy is what has people a little ticked off- a music magazine capitalizing on public enemy number one's face.
I'm never going to buy that the RS staff sat about in a Monday morning meeting with an editor demanding an informative piece on the Boston Bomber because that's what their readers have come to expect and demand from their product. I see a much different meeting with people frothing and licking their chops at the expected spike in sales. While this might be fair enough and within the magazine's rights... it doesn't mean that people can't be critical of the jump from the norm seeking profit.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
what magazine isn't about sales?
i think the criticisms of the piece seems to now simply be the picture they chose to use ... not necessarily the article just the supposed glamourization of the suspect ...
although i agree - everyone has a right to their opinion on the tastefulness of the cover and the piece itself but i do find it strange that someone would blast the magazine on the basis of profits and sales ...
also - the mainstream media has failed the public ... it rarely investigates critically and informs the public anymore ... and people are now reliant on non-traditional outlets for the kind of work that used to be done by newspapers and news outlets ... the first question everyone should have asked after the bombings after who is why ... no one seems to care about why ... only payback ...