The Death Of Old Media

links submitted by Scott Huffines

2 fantastic examples of why many "traditional" media outlets (like newspapers and magazines) are dying.

Time Magazine: "25 Things I Didn't Want To Know About You"

The New York Times: "Ah, Yes, More About Me? Here Are ‘25 Random Things"

Dear Print Publications,

If I could slap you or shake you out of this ridiculous self-caricature that you've become I would.

After 8 years of carrying water for the Bush Administration, do you really not know what news looks like anymore?

The fact that you think inanity of 25 Things on Facebook is story-worthy makes you irrelevant.

I think the sooner you go away, the better it will be for everyone.

Signed,
Someone Who Is Embarrassed For You

Comments

[John]

Let me get this straight. So 50 "year-end wrap-up" blog posts are completely relevant, and the last 49 or so of them are definitely story-worthy, but commenting on the inanity of a stupid Facebook obsession that annoys anybody on the site (except those who are vain enough to participate) isn't and, furthermore, makes any news outlet who comments on the inanity irrelevant. Clearly New Media--blogs, etc.--focus only on serious issues that are really important and relevant.

Very, very interesting.

[Amboy Dukes]

It's interesting you hold this blog up to the same standards/quality you hold Time Magazine to. That comparison is equal, what with their editors and art directors and staffs of well-paid writers.

But hey, you read this today, didn't you?

You read it frequently enough to know they ran about 50 Year End Wrap-Up blog posts (seemed to me to be about 100, thank Christ they look like they're done).

When was the last time you picked up a copy of Time or The New York Times? Or even read an article in them that you weren't directed to via a blog or Twitter?

But hey, they both did great work on cracking that "25 Things" story wide open though.

[John]

Seriously? I was defending The New York Times et al., which seems to me would imply I actually read them. And no, I don't hold this blog (or others) to the same standard. My comment was written with a thick sense of something called "irony". It was, in fact, the original post that said "traditional" media is irrelevant and should go away, hence implying the standards of New Media are higher than traditional media. Because what, if anything, would be a source of news and information if not New Media--i.e. blogs, etc.--if traditional media went away?

[Jennifer Savage]

hahahahahahaha!

Says she who just took a 40 percent paycut at her newspaper gig. And participated in Facebook's 25 things meme.

HA!

[Amboy Dukes]

Hm. Okay, John. Let's try it this way.

"Seriously? I was defending The New York Times et al., which seems to me would imply I actually read them."
I think it's clear you were defending the Times, but my question wasn't whether you read them (although I'm shocked you would indulge in a paper of such known liberal bias). The amount of links I see this blog directing to the New York Times, Time, NewsWeek, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, I assume despite the criticism of "old media" the folks here are pretty versed in it.

The question was, when was the last time you purchased a copy of The New York Times? When was the last time you purchased a copy of Time Magazine? See, part of the reason "old media" is dying is because no one sees fit to pay for it anymore. And I think part of the suggestion of this post is that it may have something to do with quality - like the quality displayed with those Facebook "stories".

And no, I don't hold this blog (or others) to the same standard.

But, in your initial comment, you say:
"So 50 "year-end wrap-up" blog posts are completely relevant, and the last 49 or so of them are definitely story-worthy, but commenting on the inanity of a stupid Facebook obsession that annoys anybody on the site (except those who are vain enough to participate) isn't and, furthermore, makes any news outlet who comments on the inanity irrelevant. Clearly New Media--blogs, etc.--focus only on serious issues that are really important and relevant."

How is that NOT comparing this blog to the New York Times and Newsweek? I mean, the comparison is blatant.

My comment was written with a thick sense of something called "irony". It was, in fact, the original post that said "traditional" media is irrelevant and should go away, hence implying the standards of New Media are higher than traditional media.

Right. But a line in the original also post said:
"If I could slap you or shake you out of this ridiculous self-caricature that you've become I would."

That contextualizes the whole letter portion of the post as ironic. Obviously the letter (a hokey device I think, by the way) is coming from someone who cares - or cared.

So, the questions I'm asking you are:
1. Do you think the people who post on this blog don't read Old Media? Don't read the New York Times or Newsweek?

2. When was the last time you paid for a copy of The New York Times?

3. When was the last time you paid for a copy of Time?

4. Do you see how you did actually compare The Mobtown Shank to The New York Times and Newsweek in terms of quality?

5. Do you see how that is an unfair and ridiculous comparison?

6. If the answer to #5 is no, then:
What are some major differences between the Times, Time and The Shank?

7. Do you now see the irony in the original post? Why would anyone who simply wants "old media" to go away want to shake it to its senses? The letter is signed as someone who is embarrassed for the old media. Can't you infer from that a fondness on the part of the writer? Sort of like an old lover or friend who is ashamed to see what has become of someone they once cared about?

8. Finally, do you really consider the ridiculous articles in the NY Times and Time on some dumb and obnoxious Facebook meme (that is indulged largely by people who know it is stupid) the sort of quality reporting both have built there reputation on? Really?

For someone who likes to point out his use of irony in his comments, you seem to struggle to identify it in others.

And I feel like a total nard for taking the time to try and explicate this post for you.

But as I read it, I think your feelings about old media and The Shank's are actually the same.

The difference being that this post points out that the New York Times covering a stupid Facebook meme is a indicator of what the Times thinks is news - a sad marker of the quality of journalism from a once great publication, and you see it as the same thing as Shank readers contributing their Top 10 Year end lists (which, by the way, is a tradition The Balyimore CityPaper, Rolling Stone Magazine, Entertainment Weekly, and hundreds of other old media outlets indulge in).

I think this post was simply saying that the New York Times and Time should be better than that. And I took your comments to say that no, the NYT and Time should be no better than The Shank.

[Benn]

Jen - that totally blows. I'm really sorry to hear it.