On The Courant

I'm sitting in the library with today's Sunday Courant and the first thing I read is Professor McEnroe's column. After finishing it, I glance at the bottom and see 'You can hear Colin McEnroe's talk show weekdays from 3 to 6 pm on WTIC-AM 1080 in the Hartford area.' Thinking I possibly have an old paper - though I know its not because the column is on a fresh political issue- I look at the date and confirm it is the Sept. 27th edition. So within a few minutes, I've already spotted a misprint. As Professor McEnroe can confirm, his show is no longer on WTIC and is now on WNPR. So add another foolish mistake to a seemingly long list that the Courant has been making recently. 

Before I get into the meat of the assigned readings, my initial impressions on the actual Courant and its website are mixed. The website reminds me too much of a local tv news website, too light on real journalistic content and instead relying too heavily on the 'flash factor', with the 'top pictures' a tempting distraction from the meatier and more important articles. In contrast to the NY Times website, its a bit amateurish, but nowhere near as confusing as the website of my home state paper, the Providence Journal. 

Nevertheless, the website is organized in a way in which article specialization is an asset; its easy to find what you want to read where. The combination of the unspecialized 'latest news section' and the specialized 'politics, sports, etc.' bars at the top make for a comprehensive look at what the Courant is offering for the day. I would give the website a B+, with kudos for relatively smart organization. 

As far as the print version goes, I'm glad they have returned to the classic 'Hartford Courant' title at the top instead of the tabloid-esque sidebar that they had a few months ago. It gives the paper its sense of self back. The Courant is America's oldest continuously published newspaper, and to preserve its aura it needs to appear as stately as it thinks it is. 

I don't like the 'Quick Take' at the bottom of the front page. I understand that our collective attention span is dropping, but this only perpetuates its decline. The Quick Take should be on A2. The three top stories should stay where they are, and instead of the Quick Take, two Courant 'specialities' that make the paper different from other media outlets - its columnists- should carry the front page. I don't understand why they are promoting an article written by 'Tribune papers'. That kills the Courant brand. The article, or one like it, can be found in any Sunday paper or on any website. You can't find the words and insights of Jon Lender and Colin McEnroe anywhere but the Courant. Its comforting and familiar for readers to see two faces they know when they take a quick glance at the paper. An expected thought process among a wavering buyer/subscriber: "Oh, there's Colin McEnroe! I wonder what he's thinking about today. I'll start to read his article... etc." To remain viable, the Courant needs to continue its emphasis on the local and the unique- the scoop that really gauges the Connecticut of the day. I think its doing that, but not as much as it should. 

Its disheartening to see all the controversy that the paper is going through, and in no means do I condone their missteps. But it seems to me the blame finger should only be pointed at one source - our collective self. The reason the Courant has become a 'shadow of its former self' and is going through such hard times is because of a drop in circulation and revenue. Its impossible to stay the same with less resources. In last week's class, one of my classmates noted how her parents had recently cancelled their subscription to the paper because they were so fed up with the paper. With all due respect, I can't think of a more foolish move. 

For a large number of Connecticut households, a Courant subscription is a small expense. The marginal benefits should outweigh the marginal costs. If we want the metropolitan newspaper to continue to be the leading investigator, informer, cultural trendsetter, and comprehensive force it should be, its only wise to support it as best as we can within our means. Only then can it continue to compete.

Last semester, I interned at the State Capitol for a CT State Representative. I was dismayed by how many of the workers throughout the Legislative Office Building read the Courant for free online exclusively. If anyone should have a vested interest in the paper's success, it should be those at the heart of the state government. The Courant has historically been Connecticut's democratic watchdog. After hearing so many legislative workers dismiss having a subscription as an unnecessary expense, I can't help but feel a bit concerned for the future of the paper. How is Joe Q. Public going to be convinced to stay a subscriber if those that work for the 'movers and shakers' of Connecticut aren't subscribers themselves? 

But for now, the Courant still has a grip -whether weak or strong- on the state. 155,000 people still subscribe to it daily, and 222,000 receive it on Sunday.  Add all the Internet hits its website gets, and you probably still have a robust, if troubled, media outlet. Its the near future that should frighten. 

On Newspapers

I just picked up this week's New Yorker at the Trincoll bookstore and as soon as I opened it up the first ad jumped out at me. Its a full page menswear spread for Banana Republic. Featured are a red 1960s Fiat 500 (my roommate clarified that it is not a VW Beetle), a HUGE white w/black spots dog popping out of the sunroof of said Fiat, and a man in a beautiful traditional grey suit, leaning up against the car, with one hand in his pocket and the other holding a folded newspaper. The caption? Simply "The Suit" in a font reminiscent of that which comes from an old typewriter.

The aim of the ad is simple. Its a throwback to the 1960s, a time that is once again fashionable with the success of Mad Men - the suit would fit perfectly on Roger Sterling- and the reemergence of the 1960s 'Ivy League' look for men (see here). (On a less germane but certainly 'Trintastic' note, if anyone stepped onto the Trinity Long Walk midday they would have little idea that much has changed in the world of men's fashion since those '60s undergrad days at Yale or Brown.)

The inclusion of the newspaper in this ad is no coincidence. Its essential to the look that the people at Banana Republic are going for - a suit and lifestyle that is as relevant and desirable today as it was when JFK took office.

As much as we cry and worry over the extinction of the hold-in-your-hands/fold-up-on-the-train hard copy newspaper, I have an odd feeling it is about to make its grand comeback. You see, just as its once again cool to wear the aforementioned suit, so it shall be cool to be seen with the day's paper. I feel we may soon reach the point in American society where newspapers will make their comeback as culturally essential, included in the 'vintage chic' persona that is today's trend.

Edit: I took a picture of the ad to give a better idea.

Thoughts on the Pew Report

I'm going to write this blog post as I read the report, by just typing out the random thoughts that pop into my head in real time

Re: Increase in viewers of cable news. I can't help but consider this a dangerous trend. Consider there are three main cable news networks, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. 

• CNN, I suppose, can be considered the most legitimate and credible, though it still has both the birther-conspiracy supporter Lou Dobbs and the lovable but undeniably light Larry King taking two prime hours of viewership. Just think that millions of Americans each night watch Lou question the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate and Larry analyze every aspect of Michael Jackson's autopsy. (Sidenote: There was an interesting piece in Vanity Fair on Larry King's new role as America's celebrity death mourner.) 
• Now let's turn to MSNBC. I have great respect for Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, and I love watching their shows. But no one should watch MSNBC exclusively. Its too much of a liberal niche, and instead of giving comprehensive, detailed reporting, it tends to focus on host centered commentary. While I consider the commentary valid and intelligent, I like to think of MSNBC an 'after the fact' network. After I've read about something in The Economist, NY Times, or WSJ I can turn to MSNBC to see what my fellow liberals are thinking.
• Finally there is Fox. Simply put, the product that Fox News Channel puts out is abysmal. I'm in awe that so many Americans watch it and only it. Its frightening the hold that Glenn Back has on so many. I'm not simply arguing against Fox because I don't agree with its political slant. I can disagree but still respect conservative news. According to the study, the main goal of the National Review is to provide "intelligent, disciplined opposition" to the Obama administration. As long as they hold true to that mission, I can respect that publication. I just feel Fox operates on a level that is so elementary and simplistic that it actually harms the nation whose 'freedom' and 'liberty' it is always trying to protect. Check out this amazing video of the rally inspired by Glenn Beck to see exactly what Fox teachers its viewers. It would be sad if it wasn't so scary. 
• There also is CNN Headline News, but any channel that is willing to employ Nancy Grace does not deserve my time. 

Re: Decrease in all news magazines except the "elite" The Economist (8% increase in circulation)

• Doesn't everyone read The Economist just so they can say "I read The Economist" over dinner or drinks? Kidding. I also find it interesting that Economist readers are the youngest and at the same time wealthiest. 

Re: Decrease in newspaper circulation

• Not surprising. I believe that the economic decline isn't the biggest factor in this decrease. I think we are failing to realize that unlike previous generations- including aging ones- we just don't find the daily newspaper a direct essential, even if we still indirectly rely on it. 
• I realize that its impossible to not make cuts when there are such heavy declines, but the newspaper industry is only amplifying its problems. In order to remain viable, newspapers have to offer something unique while still maintaining their traditionalism. By cutting sections- including niche/special interest ones- they are watering down and reducing what makes them so great.

Article on Palin's Facebook

So Politico, which is quickly becoming the go-to source for political news and analysis (phasing in of new media?) just posted an article similar to my first blog post. Its on the power of Sarah Palin's Facebook page. It addresses the impact her Facebook note on 'death panels' had/continues to have on the national health care conversation.

"For several days in August, the national health care debate turned to focus on so-called 'death panels,' in large part because of two widely-publicized Palin Facebook posts accusing Democratic authors of the House proposal of creating bureaucratic entities to decide end of life care", writes the author Adam Barr here. 

On Books

So I was just in the midst of my mid-afternoon check of the day's news when I came across this piece on a bright spot in an otherwise pessimistic publishing industry. With the release of the autobiography by the late Ted Kennedy and the newest guilty pleasure thriller by Dan Brown, the publishing industry - battered by a deep recession - is finally seeing some glimmers of hope. (In my completely unscientific survey, I noticed that by Thursday afternoon, the main display for Dan Brown's book at the Trinity bookstore was already empty. And I'm pretty sure the bookstore wasn't even offering a 40% discount.) Perhaps people will be reinvigorated and once again interested in the simple, classic book. 

It seems that although people are still reading, the "book" is mildly threatened. The Kindle is being marketed as the new 'it' thing to have and a viable replacement. A prep school in Massachusetts decided to abolish its library by going all digital. And people are now viewing books as one of the easiest items to cut out of discretionary spending. 

Though I don't consider the book to be part of the collective media (newspapers, internet, magazines, radio, television), I do believe it is still a tool of mass communication. So I find it interesting to track the health of it. 

I remember reading an article a few months back in Vanity Fair on The Kindle. For those not familiar, The Kindle is Amazon's portable reading device that is almost like an iPod Touch for books. The article's author, who I believe was writing partially tongue-in-cheek (though you never know with Vanity Fair) was lamenting the intrusion of the Kindle onto his casual spying of people's readings on the New York City subway. How else can you anonymously judge a person and, in turn, gauge the modern zeitgeist if the reading material is hidden from view? "Pity the cultural snob, as Kindles, iPods, and flash drives swallow up the visible markers of superior taste and intelligence. With the digitization of books, music, and movies, how will the high brow distinguish him- or herself from the masses?", he writes. I just love the article for its blatant embrace and defense of snobbery and the valid questions it raises on the potential demise of the traditional, beloved book.

On Facebook, Part 2

So at the risk of losing my masculinity, legitimacy, and intellectual credibility, I'm going to share something I just saw on The Tyra Banks Show. In my defense, I was getting lunch from The Bistro and it happened to be playing on the television there. Tyra's guest was Julian Smith, a 20-something You Tuber who has shot to relative fame with his quirky and hilarious video "25 Things I Hate About Facebook"

Take a look.

On Facebook

I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion on the relevance, prominence, advantages, and disadvantages of Facebook during Monday night's class. It seemed that everyone in the class took sides on Facebook, with most being either devoted, borderline addicted users or proud snubbers. One of my classmates went as far as to suggest that in order to avoid creating a Facebook she would mysteriously not be able to attend the particular class session that requires a profile. 

But before we all begin to take these absolutist sides, I think we need to take a deep breath, step back, and examine Facebook with a dispassionate lens. Once we do, I'm inclined to think that Facebook will reveal itself as a tool that, if used in moderation, can be a positive contribution to global social culture. But moderation is key. Those who use Facebook as a social tool exclusively risk losing touch with traditional ways of interaction and slipping into the cycle of frivolity that the site can invite. In contrast, those who completely shun Facebook risk missing out on participating in something that is increasingly one of the main sources of daily life in America. Who wouldn't want to be a part of a virtual time capsule that can be used in 50, 100, or 150 years from now to gain insight into the real culture of the day- the activities, interests, interactions, and self-representation of a people. 

While we continue to figure out the Facebook puzzle, even its biggest detractors can't deny the importance it has in changing the distribution and control of information within the media. For evidence, I would point to the recent entrance of the phrase 'death panels' into the national vocabulary of the current health care reform debate. By mid-August, the term 'death panels' seemed to be on the tongues of everyone following American politics. Its important to note the origins of the phrase. It was not taken as explicit or implicit language from any of the bills floating around Congress. It was not uttered by a politician at a press conference broadcast on CNN. It was not read by millions in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages. Rather, the suggestion of government run 'death panels' included in health care reform bills came from the Notes Section of Sarah Palin's Facebook page. Almost overnight, the misleading, though catchy, phrase was sweeping the more traditional news outlets- the newspapers, magazines, radio shows, and television news programs that, combined with new media, reach the largest American audience. This two word phrase published on a supposedly obscure and recently resigned Governor's Facebook page completely altered the discourse on health care reform. It became such an issue that President Obama had to debunk the 'death panels' rumor in his recent nationally broadcast address to Congress. 

So it is foolish - and possibly harmful - to dismiss Facebook, no matter our personal opinion on it. Instead, we need to take a deep thorough examination of it, because whether we like it or not, for the near future Facebook is here to stay and make lasting changes to the transmission of information in our media.