A Daily Burden All Right!
Nowadays, the dividing lines between blogs and allegedly ''true-blue journalism'' are considerably blurred each and every day. (And, yes, I do mean ''true-blue'' journalism and not yellow - at all!)
It becomes ever moreso, perhaps, due to there being so many, shall we say, questionable pieces put out by any and all of these so-called ''official outlets'' for information and reporting... And it is not that we've noticed this sad state of affairs in meaningful news-reporting exclusively; it happens all the time in the arts and entertainment sections, no matter where you go...
Case in point: here is an example of a so-called professionally-crafted article and interview with the two stars of a recently-famed Indie film, showcased at this year's Sundance Film Festival. The journalist is one Marlow Stern, of the DAILY BEAST. Immediately, he butchers up and botches up the job by presenting a totally awful intro to this piece, one in which he uses words such as ''Joisey'' and ''gaggle'' when the time comes to describe the female contingent of actor Joseph-Gordon Levitt's fandom. To add insult to injury, he gets the name wrong when he mentions the character played by ''ScarJo'' herself (Scarlett Johansson) in the film written, directed and headlined by Levitt, which Stern is giving the impression of raving about, at first glance... But, then, isn't this BEAST's slogan to ''skip that'' in the end? What it appears to say is that, after reading their reviews and/or analyses of things, the readership can avoid going through any painful experience afterwards, such as wasting roughly 90 minutes of their lives and actually watching the movie in question there...!
But, surely, the DAILY BEAST here would not do such an about face on the poor innocent interviewees that it lures into its snare - now would IT?
One would have to get inside the mind (or the belly) of the beast in order to know for sure; however, one thing is for damn sure here - the DB is damn proud and likes to flaunt what it's got... Repeated after each and every, ah, on the spot ''intervention'' we'll say, is this fine résumé here:
Marlow Stern is the assistant culture editor of The Daily Beast and holds a master’s degree from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He has served in the editorial department of Blender magazine, and as an editor at Amplifier Magazine, Newsweek and Manhattan Movie Magazine.
For all his credentials, Marlow is no Philip, quite obviously: the ebb and flow of his interrogations is somewhat chaotic at best, as his transitions between questions are non-existent, which irremediably handicaps the final results of his interview. He barely grazes the surface of the true topic as well and one is left with a very superficial feeling about both movie and subject matter, overall. And maybe of the actors involved as well - on top of the interviewer, of course.
No wonders there; the comments were outright merciless for the piece in question:
OzJosh
Hence, here it is once again for all to behold it: the evidence speaking (or being read, really) for itself and for what it really is. The breed of journalists is a stuffy one at best while its credentials and degrees do not teach them anything more than how to secure themselves a seat in the pyramidal scheme. Master's degrees and even a chancing-by web browser would muster more stinging questions than they do, when they have the privilege of talking to these ''stars''... Preditors seem unable to tell what is relevant from what is not; granted, they want their paper (no matter what media it is) to be popular first and foremost - but then aren't they supposed to strive for quality, too? Instead, they struggle to find the balance between ''striking attention'' and ''sensationalism''... Sad.
With journalism professionals out there putting out material like that on a regular basis, it is no wonder that theirs is a dying breed nowadays: and that their replacement, in the hearts and reading habits of one and all, is indeed the blogger.
For bloggers will not have to make such unsavory choices: forfeiting on the in-depth approach in favor of a quick and unsatisfying round-up of any and all possible salacious topics there are to be had with the topic at hand. Bloggers will have no limitations: they can run interviews as long as they want them to be. And those will be in-depth, thoughtful, thorough pieces - not mere fluff that actually is a disservice to the artists being interviewed, at all. Now, if only these so-called ''stars'' would give out more interviews... to bloggers!
It becomes ever moreso, perhaps, due to there being so many, shall we say, questionable pieces put out by any and all of these so-called ''official outlets'' for information and reporting... And it is not that we've noticed this sad state of affairs in meaningful news-reporting exclusively; it happens all the time in the arts and entertainment sections, no matter where you go...
Case in point: here is an example of a so-called professionally-crafted article and interview with the two stars of a recently-famed Indie film, showcased at this year's Sundance Film Festival. The journalist is one Marlow Stern, of the DAILY BEAST. Immediately, he butchers up and botches up the job by presenting a totally awful intro to this piece, one in which he uses words such as ''Joisey'' and ''gaggle'' when the time comes to describe the female contingent of actor Joseph-Gordon Levitt's fandom. To add insult to injury, he gets the name wrong when he mentions the character played by ''ScarJo'' herself (Scarlett Johansson) in the film written, directed and headlined by Levitt, which Stern is giving the impression of raving about, at first glance... But, then, isn't this BEAST's slogan to ''skip that'' in the end? What it appears to say is that, after reading their reviews and/or analyses of things, the readership can avoid going through any painful experience afterwards, such as wasting roughly 90 minutes of their lives and actually watching the movie in question there...!
But, surely, the DAILY BEAST here would not do such an about face on the poor innocent interviewees that it lures into its snare - now would IT?
One would have to get inside the mind (or the belly) of the beast in order to know for sure; however, one thing is for damn sure here - the DB is damn proud and likes to flaunt what it's got... Repeated after each and every, ah, on the spot ''intervention'' we'll say, is this fine résumé here:
Marlow Stern is the assistant culture editor of The Daily Beast and holds a master’s degree from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He has served in the editorial department of Blender magazine, and as an editor at Amplifier Magazine, Newsweek and Manhattan Movie Magazine.
For all his credentials, Marlow is no Philip, quite obviously: the ebb and flow of his interrogations is somewhat chaotic at best, as his transitions between questions are non-existent, which irremediably handicaps the final results of his interview. He barely grazes the surface of the true topic as well and one is left with a very superficial feeling about both movie and subject matter, overall. And maybe of the actors involved as well - on top of the interviewer, of course.
No wonders there; the comments were outright merciless for the piece in question:
OzJosh
We''ll do just that: the second part, that is...
Hence, here it is once again for all to behold it: the evidence speaking (or being read, really) for itself and for what it really is. The breed of journalists is a stuffy one at best while its credentials and degrees do not teach them anything more than how to secure themselves a seat in the pyramidal scheme. Master's degrees and even a chancing-by web browser would muster more stinging questions than they do, when they have the privilege of talking to these ''stars''... Preditors seem unable to tell what is relevant from what is not; granted, they want their paper (no matter what media it is) to be popular first and foremost - but then aren't they supposed to strive for quality, too? Instead, they struggle to find the balance between ''striking attention'' and ''sensationalism''... Sad.
With journalism professionals out there putting out material like that on a regular basis, it is no wonder that theirs is a dying breed nowadays: and that their replacement, in the hearts and reading habits of one and all, is indeed the blogger.
For bloggers will not have to make such unsavory choices: forfeiting on the in-depth approach in favor of a quick and unsatisfying round-up of any and all possible salacious topics there are to be had with the topic at hand. Bloggers will have no limitations: they can run interviews as long as they want them to be. And those will be in-depth, thoughtful, thorough pieces - not mere fluff that actually is a disservice to the artists being interviewed, at all. Now, if only these so-called ''stars'' would give out more interviews... to bloggers!
posted by Luminous (\ô/) Luciano™ at 10:52 AM
![](<"http://myimages.bravenet.com/176/260/448/2/dont_smile_THINK_ha.gif")
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home