popular thinking

David Simon, who worked for the Baltimore Sun from 1983-1995, and now is best known as the creator of HBO's groundbreaking series, The Wire, wrote a lengthy piece for Sunday's Washington Post wondering what happened to the newspaper business. It's a good read. Well, perhaps good is not quite the best way to describe the wholesale decline in values and standards in our modern media.

The fifth and final season of The Wire uses the Sun newsroom as a way to probe how the media has or hasn't done its civic duty in covering poverty and crime in our country. Some TV critics have griped that Simon doesn't get the newsroom right. They're missing the point. Plus, I think he gets it close enough. I'm sure police officers and others would have something to say about how the show has portrayed their inside worlds, too. The point, though, is how serious problems in our communities get marginalized or overlooked for trivial matters.

Just look around. Daily coverage devoted to the comings and goings of Britney Spears? Why, exactly? TV shows and "news" stations that justify the paparazzi by buying their photos and using their new-media video coverage as "news."

One of my former haunts sent two reporters to the Sundance film festival. Not to cover film, mind you. Just gossip.

Even the campaign coverage, in this 2008 presidential race, with so much on the line for the future of our country, the mainstream media has paid little attention to what the candidates believe or where they stand. Instead, it's just as it has been in every election cycle in modern history in America. Polls, polls, more polls. And pundits offering predictions or spinning the polls. Only now, the candidates themselves have become savvy enough to play into all of this, so we have even less reason or opportunity to know how they'd serve us as leaders.

In talking with another comedian, I mentioned, only half-jokingly, that we could be reliving the fall of the Roman Empire here. America's role as a world leader, could be in danger as we slip into an abyss. Of course, I'm oversimplifying. It'd take a lot more than a blog post to go into the particulars of our nation's priorities and its standing in the world.

But the media certainly isn't helping any.

Labels: newspapers, online, TV

Seems as though you're hearing/reading about at least one story a day in the media that references MySpace.com. Yet just about every story goes ahead and says how many members MySpace has...these days, the stat cited is 180 million. But, um, really? 180 million members? I wouldn't be surprised if at least 80 million of those so-called MySpace accounts are fakers, spammers or duplicate MySpace pages. It'd be nice, though probably unrealistic (and possibly Big Brotherish), to get an accurate count of how many MySpacers there really are.

Labels: media, online

Good question. If you're a best-selling author, and can prove it with two major books, why would you be looking for your next project on Craigslist? Good luck.

Labels: books, online

The folks at Scarborough Research published their updated national findings on print and online news readership in most metro markets of the U.S. So what should we make of these numbers?

Depends upon what you're looking for, really. Here are the numbers for the Boston market, with a measured potential area population of 4,783,000.

Boston Globe
Weekly print readers (people who picked up the paper at least once in the survey week)
1,986,000
Print market penetration
42%
Weekly online readers (people who clicked on Boston.com once or more in the survey week)
790,000
Online market penetration
17%
Total readership (factoring in people who read both print and online)
2,269,000
Total penetration
47%

Boston Herald
Weekly print readers
1,181,000
Print market penetration
25%
Weekly online readers
200,000
Online market penetration
4%
Total readership
1,259,000
Total penetration
26%

Those numbers almost mirror the situation in similarly-sized Dallas/Fort Worth, with the Dallas Morning News the primary read and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram the secondary read. Although Boston.com's online penetration is better than most other large-market news sites (though slightly less than WashingtonPost.com).

Read the numbers another way, though, and you could say that 37 percent of Boston's populace doesn't pick up either the Globe or the Herald (though likely more considering at least a few percent had read both papers during the week). What are they reading? The Metro? The new BostonNOW? A smaller community newspaper? No papers at all? It'd be good to see those numbers, too. Especially since Scarborough did include suburban paper stats for some of the other major metros. Argh.

I'll be curious to learn what Dan Kennedy makes of these stats, considering he has been arguing that media observers need to factor online readers in newspaper circulation analysis (by the way, the next circulation reports will come out early next week). And then we can fret some more about the present and future status of the American newspaper.

Labels: media, newspapers, online

If you're a Virginia Tech student who survived this week's shootings and decide to blog about it, get ready for lots of media requests for interviews. See Exhibit A (Via Gawker). The requests run from bad to worse to obscene. Yes, journalists want to talk to survivors of any tragedy. I once had to talk to the parents of a small child who had died hours earlier, and I felt awkward and intrusive...but at the same time, you have to be sensitive to the grieving process. In some cases, allowing survivors and loved ones of victims to speak can be quite cathartic for them. I learned that, too, while working an obits beat at one paper. In other cases, survivors shouldn't be forced to talk more than they already have -- if they didn't included it in their blog post, they obviously aren't ready to share more. Some of the media covering the Virginia Tech shootings still need to learn some of these lessons.

Labels: media, online

I must be imagining this, because the T's Web site is up for an official Webby award as the best government site.

If only the MBTA could be as successful getting its trains to run on time. Or if it could tell me why I need to use paper Charlie tickets for my passes instead of my plastic Charlie card. Or if it could explain the Silver Line to me one more time.

Labels: government, online

Even the Wall Street Journal suggests that blogging leads to employment. Maybe I should apply for a job there?! Yes. Maybe I shall.

Labels: blogs, media, online

Nielsen/NetRatings released its roundup of Web visitor stats for February 2007, and its top 30 begins with some usual suspects: The New York Times had a big lead with 12.9 million unique visitors and more than 455 million page views in February, followed by USA Today, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal (even though the WSJ restricts most of its stories and data for paid online subscribers, which should provide evidence that if you have something people really want, they will pay for it online). Thanks to Editor and Publisher for getting the data, which follows similar findings by the Newspaper Association of America.

The top 10 in visitors for February 2007
NYTimes.com: 12,960,000
USATODAY.com: 9,050,000
washingtonpost.com: 8,030,000
LA Times: 4,546,000
Wall Street Journal Online: 3,436,000
The Houston Chronicle: 3,292,000
SFGate.com: 3,236,000
Boston.com: 3,197,000
Chicago Tribune: 2,973,000
New York Post: 2,684,000
(*11. Daily News Online Edition: 2,555,000 -- They redesigned the site in March)

The top 10 in page views
NYTimes.com: 455,527,000
USAToday.com: 169,517,000
Washingtonpost.com: 154,836,000
Houston Chronicle: 93,737,000
Boston.com/Boston Globe: 57,154,000
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 54,994,000
SFGate.com: 51,617,000
LA Times: 50,986,000
Chicago Tribune: 45,283,000
Wall Street Journal: 42,067,000

Labels: newspapers, online

Another report suggests that the youngsters are reading newspapers -- online, anyhow. The Newspaper Association of America says its data shows online paper sites have increased views and visitors by 13.7 percent in the 25-34 demo, and by 9.2 percent in the 18-24 bracket. Boston media critic Dan Kennedy often argues that combining the online and print readership shows the news ain't all bad for the newspaper companies. What do you say?

Updated/related: The Seattle Times continues speculation that its competition, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, will go online-only if their JOA breaks.

Labels: media, newspapers, online

Very pleased to see my college writing friend, Sarah D. Bunting, cash in on this newfangled Internet craze. Bravo announced yesterday it had purchased Bunting's Television Without Pity site (read news about it here or here). They've already got it linked from the TV network's home page! And the TWoP has a statement about the big buy here.

Sarah and I go back to the olden times, back when the Internet was merely a secret government project, back when we would co-write and publish a definitive student guide to Princeton. I convinced Sarah to write for me as I published one semester of the Student Course Guide (Tangent: Having all of this online makes it so much easier to coordinate than back in those olden times! Oh well.). Sarah then convinced me to join her on the staff of the college's alt-paper, Nassau Weekly (co-founded by David Remnick, for you trivia buffs!), where I became a resident Page 2 humor columnist. That, of course, helped send me on my way into a fun-filled adventure into the world of real-world journalism. So, yes, blame/credit Sars for some of the pithy prose I've brought unto the world. I'm going to go with credit on this one.

Labels: media, online, TV

I see Peekvid is back online in a new Beta version, with a Very Special Message on the home page...

"Peekvid does not contain any content on its site, but is merely an index of available links on the Internet. Peekvid is committed to an industry solution that will provide a mechanism to compensate artists that create the work you enjoy watching. Peekvid would like to be part of the long term solution."

Sounds like they're hoping not only to avoid lawsuits from the show business industries, but also to make money off of any "long term solution." We'll stay tuned to see if they can make a buck off of the illegal copyright infringements by others. More than a few of my recent blog visitors have come looking for Peekvid info, especially since the site went down temporarily. Well, it's back up. Enjoy it while it lasts!

Labels: movies, online, TV, videos

Today's nominee for the most popular misused phrase uttered on TV newscasts across the country: "You'll never see this on television again."

What is this, perchance? The Snickers Super Bowl ad, which all of the aforementioned newscasts -- cable, network and local -- then showed over and over again. On television.



Related: Snickers; GLAAD condemns the ad; Snickers parent company pulls the ad

Labels: advertising, media, online, TV

No Groundhogs! Here are some timely videos for your Friday afternoon...

Zebro, an Emerson College comedy troupe, weighs in on Boston's false-alarm terror alert. Note: Includes profanity.


One of two videos showing the sign installation. This one has faster music, regular speed, in other cities, but with a Pac-Man remix.


The other video, this one showing the Boston sign artists/culprits, in action:


Hey, look! A video that's not about the Boston alert of Jan. 31! Meet Chris Coxen. Or rather, meet Chris Coxen's League of Characters, who'll be on display this Saturday at the BCA. Here is his trailer for the show:


Now, even more comedy! The Walsh Brothers, two of the funniest guys in Boston, are about to leave their Charlestown roots for Los Angeles. But not before a grand farewell, with a show Saturday night in New York City at the UCB, then two weekends at Jimmy Tingle's in Somerville. Here is their sales pitch, skinny dipping in Boston Harbor, with requisite profanity (duly noted for your attention).

Labels: online, videos

So I see that humor columnist (and Pulitzer winner) Dave Barry has emerged from his print retirement this week to file daily dispatches from his Miami city in honor of Super Bowl Week. Based on today's column about media day? Color me unimpressed. Unless you count the anonymously cited bosoms. But Barry also has kept his typing fingers busy on his official blog, and based on his take on this season's 24? OK. He still has some funny left to share. You just have to go online to find the laughs. Just another bad sign for the old-school print media.

Labels: blogs, newspapers, online

This just in from Nielsen Net Ratings: Readership is up for newspaper online sites, and up up UP for newspaper blogs. (thanks, Huffington Post) Not much of a surprise there. The jump from December 2005 to December 2006 was much bigger -- a 210% hike -- for official newspaper blogs, which does make sense, since so many papers finally got into the blogging game last year. I know it worked for me. At least in terms of reaching an audience. Not so much help for me or my employer in terms of revenue, though. That's the trick for 2007. Which newspapers will pull it off?

Labels: newspapers, online

The Emerson College kids from Chocolate Cake City have sent me another video-mail missive. This time, they've culled the clips and found a way to let Tom Hanks live out his dream to play 007 -- Bond, James Bond. Watch it here.

Labels: comedy, online, videos

What's that, you say? There's no such thing as a free movie? Enter Peekvid. The site's entry page boasts more than 20,000 clips of your "favourite" TV shows and movies (the "favourite" spelling might be a clue as well as a decoy to finding the site's owner(s), although the site also breaks out categories for anime and Asian dramas, so hmmm). Certainly, copyright issues abound. And some of the movies are still showing in cinemas. So, how do they do it?

In the case of Little Children, the video carries the notation: "For Your Consideration." So you know that one is a screener that a critic and/or award voter got and uploaded illegally.

In the case of Blood Diamond, at least twice during one clip you can see people's heads obscuring the screen. So you know that one was taped at a screening. Also highly illegal.

Peek-a-vid, we see you! How long, though, before the studios track you down?

Labels: movies, online, TV

You have to hand it to Saturday Night Live. Every once in a while, they get it. Not just delivering laughs, but also understanding the need to let everyone in on the joke. Over the holidays, NBC's longtime late-night institution proved that once again with the music video, "Dick in a Box," starring Justin Timberlake and SNL'er Andy Samberg. Like "Lazy Sunday" before it, the video has only gotten more popular online, inspiring millions more viewers and countless parodies. This time, however, NBC wised up and put the video on YouTube -- along with many more SNL sketches -- online for anyone to see, anytime, anyplace.

One of the "Box" parodies/tributes getting buzz is "My Box in a Box." For good reason. This video has all of the essential qualities you need in a buzzworthy YouTube vid: Solid production values, a catchy soundtrack and an attractive woman who's not afraid to give plenty of come hither poses.



Nice job, Bunny!

Labels: online, TV, videos