Posts about Media_on_Media


Though by the reputation given me by others, I’m supposed to be disagreeable, twice today, I’ve disappointed big, old media people by not disagreeing enough.

Business Week wanted a debate over the fate of print with me supposed to take the side that print is doomed while Chris Tolles of Topix was supposed to argue that it isn’t. But it turns out that we agreed too much and so they took out my first lines (though I put them back). Chris says that digital will lead the way. I agree:

Whether or not print dies, its business model will. Physical wares—newspapers, books, magazines, discs—will no longer be the primary or most profitable means of delivering and interacting with media: news, fact, entertainment, or education. It’s not that print is bad. It’s that digital is better.

And this morning, I appeared on the CBS Morning Show in a segment with Andi Silverman, author of Mama Knows Breast, about a dustup caused when Facebook took down photos of women breastfeeding. The producers were looking for disagreement, but they knew going in that we wouldn’t be arguing. Andi defended breastfeeding as hardly indecent and I said we have to stop paying attention just to complainers or we’ll end up in a media world in which anything that could offend will be banned – and most everything can offend someone.

Watch CBS Videos Online

You’d think these would be happy endings to discussions: agreement found, consensus gained. But that doesn’t fit the format. I like this as a new form of contrariness: not being contrary and agreeing – nodding as the new act of subversion.

: LATER: Chris Tolles, too, added back in notes of agreement to his side of the debate. Group hug.

Media on media

I’m going to be on the Diane Rehm show this morning at 10a ET to talk about – what else? – the fate of the newspaper industry.

Media on media

I’m set to be on Howie Kurtz’ Reliable Sources at 10a EDT today to talk about the waste and hubris of sending 15,000 journalists to the political conventions and how we over-report politics and under-report government.

All my neuroses suddenly make sense

Gawker quotes from the transcript of Reliable Sources yesterday, in which I tell how my own mother didn’t notice my byline. Now you’ll understand me.

: My stand on the segment was that it makes no sense for local newspapers to hold onto movie critics as they risk losing real reporters. Among the comments at Gawker:

* “One could argue that the man who invented Entertainment weekly cheapened all kinds of criticism by keeping it short, adding letter grades, and so on. So it is no surprise he would want to get rid of all critics. They are obviously interchangeable to him and only matter when they give letter grades, and anyone can give a letter grade. Putz.”

Well, I think that was a rather succinct review itself. I think he gives me an F.

* “But if they get rid of all the movie critics from smaller papers, where are the mediocre movies going to get their rave reviews to quote in their ads and trailers?”

Blurb shortage strikes Hollywood.

* “Jarvis lost my respect when he did not approve my add on facebook. Looks like you need Columbia to hang out with smartypants. fuck him. seriously.”

This signed by someone named Moe Golden. I know no Moe. I also have nothing to do with Columbia. And I’m not inclined to befriend anybody named Moe who wants to fuck me, seriously. This may be why Moe has no friends. Now we’ve understood the neuroses of two people on the web.

* “Yeah, I didn’t invent EW or anything, but I’m a reporter and my mom often quotes my stories to me not realizing I wrote them. I usually just ignore it, grateful she’s getting her news from someone other than Bill O’Reilly. But really Jarvis? Don’t take away my fucking byline.”

Get a blog.

On On the Media

Here’s Bob Garfield’s On the Media report on the Networked Journalism Summit at CUNY.

: LATER: There’s quite the discussion between Jay Rosen and Bob Garfield in the comments. Click on.