Thursday, November 14, 2013
Arnie. Arnie?
Aside from the fact that it looks like Arnold Palmer had just gotten embalmed, this is a pretty cool cover, as covers that feature Kate Upton tend to be.
A Holiday Miracle: Watching an Airline Safety Video
Delta Continues to Have Fun (to a Point) With Its Pre-Flight Yada, Yada
It had been a while since I had flown Delta, so it was by happenstance that I actually started watching the safety videos during a couple of flights over the weekend. And not because I was bored.
Delta, with the help of Wieden & Kennedy, has for the last year come out with videos that tell you all you need to know, but with a healthy dose of humor. In other words, you want to watch rather than tune out and keep reading the paper. Not that I learned anything new, but that's besides the point. It's refreshing to see an airline taking its job seriously without having to be too serious.
I watched this one, which came out last year, on the outbound flight.
I caught a newer one, released just last month, on the way home.
And keep an eye out for a celebrity cameo. No, Santa doesn't count.
Now if Delta can just work on getting my bag out faster next time, it'll truly be a happy holiday.
It had been a while since I had flown Delta, so it was by happenstance that I actually started watching the safety videos during a couple of flights over the weekend. And not because I was bored.
Delta, with the help of Wieden & Kennedy, has for the last year come out with videos that tell you all you need to know, but with a healthy dose of humor. In other words, you want to watch rather than tune out and keep reading the paper. Not that I learned anything new, but that's besides the point. It's refreshing to see an airline taking its job seriously without having to be too serious.
I watched this one, which came out last year, on the outbound flight.
I caught a newer one, released just last month, on the way home.
Now if Delta can just work on getting my bag out faster next time, it'll truly be a happy holiday.
Getting Scooped by the Competition about Yourself
Capital New York Beats New York Times to Punch on Departure News
The New York Times made big news about itself Wednesday, when it announced the departure of three big names from its formidable roster, including TV/media wunderkind Brian Stelter (to CNN), NY Times magazine political correspondent Matt Bai (Yahoo) and Times magazine editor Hugo Lindgren (points unknown).
That these three were leaving--on the heels of Richard Berke (Politico), David Pogue (Yahoo), Howard Beck (Bleacher Report) and Nate Silver (ESPN)--was notable in and of itself.
But what caught my eye was the last line in the story about the departures: "Mr. Lindgren's move was first reported by Capital New York."
Yes, they had to own up to the fact that a whippersnapper website--and one about to get snappier since being acquired by Politico--had beaten them to their own punch. Ordinarily, those wouldn't be fodder, even for the media-industry mavens at the Times, though Pogue, one of the paper's biggest stars, received similar treatment.
I'd hazard Lindgren on his own wouldn't have merited a mention. But tack on Berke and Stelter, and you have yourselves a media moment for those keeping score at home. Like me.
The New York Times made big news about itself Wednesday, when it announced the departure of three big names from its formidable roster, including TV/media wunderkind Brian Stelter (to CNN), NY Times magazine political correspondent Matt Bai (Yahoo) and Times magazine editor Hugo Lindgren (points unknown).
That these three were leaving--on the heels of Richard Berke (Politico), David Pogue (Yahoo), Howard Beck (Bleacher Report) and Nate Silver (ESPN)--was notable in and of itself.
But what caught my eye was the last line in the story about the departures: "Mr. Lindgren's move was first reported by Capital New York."
Yes, they had to own up to the fact that a whippersnapper website--and one about to get snappier since being acquired by Politico--had beaten them to their own punch. Ordinarily, those wouldn't be fodder, even for the media-industry mavens at the Times, though Pogue, one of the paper's biggest stars, received similar treatment.
I'd hazard Lindgren on his own wouldn't have merited a mention. But tack on Berke and Stelter, and you have yourselves a media moment for those keeping score at home. Like me.
Tuesday, October 01, 2013
Are Newspaper Paywalls Starting to Crumble?
Well, Maybe Not Yet, But....
Ever since paywalls became the new black for newspapers, they have acquired some rather ardent detractors as well as defenders.
In the latter category are The New York Times and Wall Street Journal, which have profited handsomely by putting up digital gates. The Times now has nearly 676,000 digital subscribers--also figuring in The International Herald Tribune--while the Journal, a paywall pioneer, has nearly 900,000.
But those papers have oodles of unique content--some of it exclusively digital--that is worth reading and paying for. The same can't be said for most newspapers, though they sure as hell want to make their case. Hundreds of newspapers now have some kind of paywall.
However, for many, that's a problem. They're creating a digital divide at the same time they're cutting staff and content.
All of Gannett's 80 community newspapers have a metered system on their websites. But have you read any of these papers lately? Feh. There's not much there there. And yet Gannett wants you to pony up anyway.
And while early numbers showed that revenue gains from digital subs at Gannett made up for print advertising losses, that may not be sustainable if print subscribers--faced with price increases and shrinking papers--exit more quickly than digital readers enter. Ditto for advertisers. At my local Journal-News in New York's northern suburbs, weekday circulation is 66,000. It was 77,000 just two years earlier. Do you really think digital revenue is making up the difference? Of course not. That's why the J-N laid off 11 percent of its staff in August.
Now the headlong rush to digital gold is being reassessed. First, it was the San Francisco Chronicle that decided to make everything on sfgate.com free again. Now, it's the Dallas Morning News that has signaled retreat. It dropped its paywall in favor of an enhanced experience for "premium subscribers."
How that'll be received remains to be seen (it's free for print subscribers), but unless it's a big-time game-changer, don't expect readers to come a flocking. After all, the reason the DMN dropped its paywall wasn't to be nice. Rather, it bombed with readers. As the paper's CEO said, it didn't create a "massive groundswell" of new subscribers. Quite a euphemism that.
So while the air of inevitability may not be sucked out of the paywall equation just yet, the numbers still have to add up to make it stick. As the San Francisco and Dallas papers have proved, that's a lot easier said than done.
Ever since paywalls became the new black for newspapers, they have acquired some rather ardent detractors as well as defenders.
In the latter category are The New York Times and Wall Street Journal, which have profited handsomely by putting up digital gates. The Times now has nearly 676,000 digital subscribers--also figuring in The International Herald Tribune--while the Journal, a paywall pioneer, has nearly 900,000.
But those papers have oodles of unique content--some of it exclusively digital--that is worth reading and paying for. The same can't be said for most newspapers, though they sure as hell want to make their case. Hundreds of newspapers now have some kind of paywall.
However, for many, that's a problem. They're creating a digital divide at the same time they're cutting staff and content.
All of Gannett's 80 community newspapers have a metered system on their websites. But have you read any of these papers lately? Feh. There's not much there there. And yet Gannett wants you to pony up anyway.
And while early numbers showed that revenue gains from digital subs at Gannett made up for print advertising losses, that may not be sustainable if print subscribers--faced with price increases and shrinking papers--exit more quickly than digital readers enter. Ditto for advertisers. At my local Journal-News in New York's northern suburbs, weekday circulation is 66,000. It was 77,000 just two years earlier. Do you really think digital revenue is making up the difference? Of course not. That's why the J-N laid off 11 percent of its staff in August.
Now the headlong rush to digital gold is being reassessed. First, it was the San Francisco Chronicle that decided to make everything on sfgate.com free again. Now, it's the Dallas Morning News that has signaled retreat. It dropped its paywall in favor of an enhanced experience for "premium subscribers."
How that'll be received remains to be seen (it's free for print subscribers), but unless it's a big-time game-changer, don't expect readers to come a flocking. After all, the reason the DMN dropped its paywall wasn't to be nice. Rather, it bombed with readers. As the paper's CEO said, it didn't create a "massive groundswell" of new subscribers. Quite a euphemism that.
So while the air of inevitability may not be sucked out of the paywall equation just yet, the numbers still have to add up to make it stick. As the San Francisco and Dallas papers have proved, that's a lot easier said than done.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Someone at Microsoft Must Be Smiling Over Apple Ad
Very Subtle, but People Get Canned For Things Like This
Now that Apple has unleashed the next generation of iPhones, we won't be seeing two of the best commercials of the year, which were devoted to the iPhone 5. They are tender, compelling and eminently watchable for repeated viewing. The first one tells us in an oh-so-subtle way that you are one with the world if you use iTunes to listen to music on your phone. And you feel real good about that decision after seeing this spot:
More recently, I had been coming across the second spot, which is even better and displays the virtues of Face Time. You see people all over the world interacting with the video chat service in a myriad of ways, some funny, others touching and, for one, a little sad.
There's an excellent chance you've seen the one-minute ad, one of the few you might even rewind the DVR to see. But a couple of days ago I got close enough to the TV to notice a tiny detail in one scene 45 seconds in that might irk a dweeb or two in Apple's marketing machine.
It shows a couple relaxing in an airport boarding area laughing over something on their phone. The logo on the chairs they're sitting on is for Alaska Airlines, whose hub is in Seattle. Which just happens to be very close to Redmond, home of Microsoft.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that maybe I'm getting a little too granular here, even for the folks in Cupertino. But somebody has to obsess about things like this, even for spots that will be relegated to YouTube and Clio Awards clip reels. Thought I'd start the ball rolling.
Now that Apple has unleashed the next generation of iPhones, we won't be seeing two of the best commercials of the year, which were devoted to the iPhone 5. They are tender, compelling and eminently watchable for repeated viewing. The first one tells us in an oh-so-subtle way that you are one with the world if you use iTunes to listen to music on your phone. And you feel real good about that decision after seeing this spot:
More recently, I had been coming across the second spot, which is even better and displays the virtues of Face Time. You see people all over the world interacting with the video chat service in a myriad of ways, some funny, others touching and, for one, a little sad.
It shows a couple relaxing in an airport boarding area laughing over something on their phone. The logo on the chairs they're sitting on is for Alaska Airlines, whose hub is in Seattle. Which just happens to be very close to Redmond, home of Microsoft.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that maybe I'm getting a little too granular here, even for the folks in Cupertino. But somebody has to obsess about things like this, even for spots that will be relegated to YouTube and Clio Awards clip reels. Thought I'd start the ball rolling.
New York Times Ends Mets' Season Early
That Might Not Be a Bad Thing, But Still....
The New York Times, as I have often stated, has the quirkiest sports section going. On the one hand, you have some top-flight writers (Tyler Kepner, Jere Longman, Harvey Araton) who make the sports pages destination reading.
Yet, the paper has essentially done away with regular columnists--even though it had some of the best over the last two decades--in favor of long, sometimes very long, features that demand your time, which is often a lot easier said than done, even when they are worthy (see "Snow-Fall" and "Jockey."
Maybe those efforts create a resource issue, and a serious one at that. The Times often appears to be covering New York teams grudgingly, as if it is resentful that the "New York" in its title somehow clouds its designs to be a truly national (and international) paper. That sentiment is often on display this time of year after the Mets have long since entered their irrelevant stage for the season. And that, for a newspaper, can be a dangerous thing.
The Times did not even have a reporter at last Friday's away game against the Cleveland Indians. Instead, it relied on a short story from the A.P. A stringer was wrangled to cover the last two games of the series, while Mets beat writer Andrew Keh was dispatched to cover the U.S. men's soccer team's attempt to qualify for the World Cup.
Even if Mets diehards like myself are not hanging on every pitch in September, that doesn't mean the faithful care any less about the team. The Daily News knows that. So does the New York Post. The team stinks, but it's still covered. And they do. Because, hey, you never know. And that's because what a lot of people are buying the papers for.
Still, last Friday could have been the night rookie Zack Wheeler pitched a no-hitter. Or Daniel Murphy hit three homers en route to a 19-1 rout. Or (fill in the blank) suffered a devastating injury. Hey, what about that bench-clearing brawl? And so on. That the Mets lost that game 8-1 is immaterial. Something big could have happened to arouse the Flushing Faithful. But a Times reporter would not have told them about that.
Last night's home loss was also short-shrifted. It was relegated to one graf and a line that there was a "staff article at nytimes.com." There was, though promising rookie Tim Rohan's dispatch lacks a quote. I wouldn't have minded hearing manager Terry Collins fulminating about his team's absence of offense, anyone's thoughts on playing on 9/11 or Wheeler approaching his innings limit. But who cares? It's the Mets, right?
Similarly, there was not a single story about the Jets in last Saturday's paper, the day before the season opened. There was only a short piece about the Giants. True, they were covered Sunday, but this is the time of the year when fans are foaming for any nuggets on Gang Green or Big Blue. Why should they have to buy a second paper or go online to get their fix?
I actually took the bait this year for a deep-discount subscription deal from the Daily News to ensure my sports needs were met through the year. The paper hasn't disappointed, with at least two reporters covering the Jets and Giants, along with NFL columnist Gary Myers. And the tabs are positively lousy with writers tripping over themselves in the press box preening at the Yankees' flickering hopes for a wildcard berth.
Meanwhile, the Times never got around to replacing national football writer Judy Battista when she decamped to NFL Media. That leaves Jets beat writer Ben Shpigel and Giants scribe Bill Pennington to pick up the slack. Battista's job is in dire need of filling. What about backup freelancer Tom Pedulla? His several decades covering football for Gannett should count as sufficient seasoning for the Times. And, hey, it's a national beat. He'd never have to type in New York if the Times didn't want him to.
Yet, the paper has essentially done away with regular columnists--even though it had some of the best over the last two decades--in favor of long, sometimes very long, features that demand your time, which is often a lot easier said than done, even when they are worthy (see "Snow-Fall" and "Jockey."
Maybe those efforts create a resource issue, and a serious one at that. The Times often appears to be covering New York teams grudgingly, as if it is resentful that the "New York" in its title somehow clouds its designs to be a truly national (and international) paper. That sentiment is often on display this time of year after the Mets have long since entered their irrelevant stage for the season. And that, for a newspaper, can be a dangerous thing.
The Times did not even have a reporter at last Friday's away game against the Cleveland Indians. Instead, it relied on a short story from the A.P. A stringer was wrangled to cover the last two games of the series, while Mets beat writer Andrew Keh was dispatched to cover the U.S. men's soccer team's attempt to qualify for the World Cup.
Even if Mets diehards like myself are not hanging on every pitch in September, that doesn't mean the faithful care any less about the team. The Daily News knows that. So does the New York Post. The team stinks, but it's still covered. And they do. Because, hey, you never know. And that's because what a lot of people are buying the papers for.
Still, last Friday could have been the night rookie Zack Wheeler pitched a no-hitter. Or Daniel Murphy hit three homers en route to a 19-1 rout. Or (fill in the blank) suffered a devastating injury. Hey, what about that bench-clearing brawl? And so on. That the Mets lost that game 8-1 is immaterial. Something big could have happened to arouse the Flushing Faithful. But a Times reporter would not have told them about that.
Last night's home loss was also short-shrifted. It was relegated to one graf and a line that there was a "staff article at nytimes.com." There was, though promising rookie Tim Rohan's dispatch lacks a quote. I wouldn't have minded hearing manager Terry Collins fulminating about his team's absence of offense, anyone's thoughts on playing on 9/11 or Wheeler approaching his innings limit. But who cares? It's the Mets, right?
Similarly, there was not a single story about the Jets in last Saturday's paper, the day before the season opened. There was only a short piece about the Giants. True, they were covered Sunday, but this is the time of the year when fans are foaming for any nuggets on Gang Green or Big Blue. Why should they have to buy a second paper or go online to get their fix?
I actually took the bait this year for a deep-discount subscription deal from the Daily News to ensure my sports needs were met through the year. The paper hasn't disappointed, with at least two reporters covering the Jets and Giants, along with NFL columnist Gary Myers. And the tabs are positively lousy with writers tripping over themselves in the press box preening at the Yankees' flickering hopes for a wildcard berth.
Meanwhile, the Times never got around to replacing national football writer Judy Battista when she decamped to NFL Media. That leaves Jets beat writer Ben Shpigel and Giants scribe Bill Pennington to pick up the slack. Battista's job is in dire need of filling. What about backup freelancer Tom Pedulla? His several decades covering football for Gannett should count as sufficient seasoning for the Times. And, hey, it's a national beat. He'd never have to type in New York if the Times didn't want him to.
Monday, August 05, 2013
Jeff Bezos: Internet Billionaire, News Magnate
Hard to Imagine the Washington Post Not Being Owned by the Grahams? Not Anymore
Wow, talking about being able to keep a secret.
The Washington Post scooped everyone this afternoon with news about The Washington Post, specifically that Amazon founder, CEO and Big Cheese Jeff Bezos is buying the paper for $250 million.
Paul Farhi writes in the Post: "With extraordinary secrecy, Graham hired the investment firm Allen & Co. to shop the paper, company executives said. Allen’s representatives spoke with a half-dozen potential suitors before the Post Co.’s board settled on Bezos, 49, a legendary tech innovator who has never operated a newspaper."
Emphasis on the extraordinary secrecy.
So, what does it all mean in the scheme of things? As far as Bezos is concerned, not much, at least not for now. He's keeping management in place and will stay put in Seattle because he has a "fantastic day job that I love."
It should be noted, as the Post does, that this is Bezos buying the paper and not Amazon, though if he was able to squeeze out a little synergy to pump subscription sales, then who can blame the guy? Moreover, the presence of Bezos may eventually give the paper even more of a push into the digital realm faster than it had planned. That can only be a viewed as a positive, given anemic newsstand sales.
One of Bezos's hallmarks is his patience. This is not a CEO who pulls hair triggers just to satisfy investors. As the book and music business, among others, have found, though, Bezos plays for keeps. It's not a cheap goal. In fact, Amazon lost $38 million last year in pursuit of market dominance. That's won Amazon a lot of fans on Wall Street. It closed today at just under $301 a share. And since Bezos owns 87.1 million shares of Amazon and has a net worth of at least $26.2 billion, he can go long on his growth strategy.
That's good news for the nation's seventh-largest newspaper. The Post has been a poster child for all that ails the newspaper business, what with its hemorrhaging revenues and continued circulation nosedives. If Bezos sees a way out of this mess or empowers others to make that journey of discovery he won't be in a hurry to see results. A Post that was part of a publicly traded company, like it was until today, wouldn't have that luxury.
Sure, it'll be hard to imagine the Graham family no longer being associated with the Post. To be sure, it was a great run, one of the best. But as they leave their legacy, they can rest assured that the newspaper that defined their family now has a secure future.
The Washington Post scooped everyone this afternoon with news about The Washington Post, specifically that Amazon founder, CEO and Big Cheese Jeff Bezos is buying the paper for $250 million.
Paul Farhi writes in the Post: "With extraordinary secrecy, Graham hired the investment firm Allen & Co. to shop the paper, company executives said. Allen’s representatives spoke with a half-dozen potential suitors before the Post Co.’s board settled on Bezos, 49, a legendary tech innovator who has never operated a newspaper."
Emphasis on the extraordinary secrecy.
So, what does it all mean in the scheme of things? As far as Bezos is concerned, not much, at least not for now. He's keeping management in place and will stay put in Seattle because he has a "fantastic day job that I love."
It should be noted, as the Post does, that this is Bezos buying the paper and not Amazon, though if he was able to squeeze out a little synergy to pump subscription sales, then who can blame the guy? Moreover, the presence of Bezos may eventually give the paper even more of a push into the digital realm faster than it had planned. That can only be a viewed as a positive, given anemic newsstand sales.
One of Bezos's hallmarks is his patience. This is not a CEO who pulls hair triggers just to satisfy investors. As the book and music business, among others, have found, though, Bezos plays for keeps. It's not a cheap goal. In fact, Amazon lost $38 million last year in pursuit of market dominance. That's won Amazon a lot of fans on Wall Street. It closed today at just under $301 a share. And since Bezos owns 87.1 million shares of Amazon and has a net worth of at least $26.2 billion, he can go long on his growth strategy.
That's good news for the nation's seventh-largest newspaper. The Post has been a poster child for all that ails the newspaper business, what with its hemorrhaging revenues and continued circulation nosedives. If Bezos sees a way out of this mess or empowers others to make that journey of discovery he won't be in a hurry to see results. A Post that was part of a publicly traded company, like it was until today, wouldn't have that luxury.
Sure, it'll be hard to imagine the Graham family no longer being associated with the Post. To be sure, it was a great run, one of the best. But as they leave their legacy, they can rest assured that the newspaper that defined their family now has a secure future.
Looking for Redemption in All the Wrong Places on "The Killing"
Just When You Thought Sarah Linden Would Finally Have Her Shit Together....
(Spoiler Alert: Come back later if you didn't see last night's episode of "The Killing")
No TV show does dread better than "The Killing."
Maybe it's those always-cloudy days, not to mention the drizzle in Vancouver (masquerading as Seattle).
Maybe it's because the rare moments of happiness on the show are quickly followed by portent, implied danger or untimely demises.
It's a cocooned world where the promise of redemption is dashed by dark secrets. The chrysalis struggling to break free of this world is Detective Sarah Linden, played by the mesmerizing Mireille Enos. You root for Linden because she's as good an investigator as she is lousy at being a mom and picking men. More on that in a bit.
"The Killing" wrapped up its third season last night, which was something of a TV miracle after it had been canceled after season two by AMC following the Rosie Larsen debacle. Then content-hungry Netflix rode in to the rescue and paid for exclusive streaming rights, which allowed Fox to charge AMC less per episode and give "The Killing" new life.
Hence season three, for which viewers hungering for quality TV drama in the summer owe Netflix a huge debt of gratitude. For "The Killing" delivered its best effort yet. Showrunner Veena Sud didn't piss off viewers who saw their investment in emotional energy squandered in season one by an unnecessary cliffhanger.
Season four should be a no-brainer for all involved. Sud got it right, though maybe too right.
With last night's finale, we finally saw how the dueling plots of the investigation of the serial killer offing teen prostitutes and the impending execution of Ray Seward (a gripping Peter Saarsgard) were linked.
A lesser show might have revealed this sooner, but "The Killing" this time rewarded our patience.
There was not one false note in the reveal that Linden's boss and sometime lover, Lt. James Skinner (Elias Koteas), was the killer of the girls. We found out Skinner had framed Seward for the murder of his wife, which led to Seward's hard-to-watch hanging in the penultimate episode.
In the finale, Seward's son, Adrian goes missing, soon after Linden and Holder realize it was Adrian--not his mother--who Skinner was after. Linden realizes Skinner was the killer after seeing his daughter wearing a ring that belonged to one of the victims.
After confronting him, Skinner claims Adrian is still alive but will only reveal where he is if Linden goes with him for what turns into a long drive to his lake house, during which he unfurls what's inside his sick mind. Linden is at once seething over what she is hearing and nauseated (literally) that this is a man who she had thought--as recently as that morning after a tryst--that she could make a life with and actually become happy for more than a fleeting moment.
But Adrian is not at the lake house. Skinner instead hints Adrian's in the trunk of the car. And dead (he's actually found hiding by his mother's gravestone). Linden shoots Skinner in the chest. Her partner, Stephen Holder (consistently the show's best-written character played by Joel Kinnaman) had gone to the house after piecing together where Skinner was headed. He tells Linden that Adrian is alive and that Skinner brought her to the house for her to kill him. That should be that. But Linden is too damaged. A lifetime of betrayal and disappointment has caught up to her. One more shot metes out final justice.
In a way, it makes sense. Linden and Holder can't ride off into the sunset. By my count, it was sunny about twice during the show's three seasons.
Still, Linden was in bad need of a reboot. Instead, she chose to become one with the abyss. This presents a problem in the putative season four. The secret she and Holder must keep will hover over any procedural surrounding the next sicko they chase after.
Their pathos--Holder is a recovering drug addict, among other issues--has always existed side-by-side with the murder probes and frequently intersected. But the thread of cop-turned-cop killer threatens to overwhelm all else. Having such an event serve as the locus of a program is what faces AMC's newest offering, Low Winter Sun. It's a premise that threatens to be more tiring than compelling as viewers wonder how long can this be sustained. The answer: not long at all, and the British version on which "Low Winter Sun" is based was only a miniseries.
As for "The Killing," this season affirmed it merits the benefit of the doubt. Root for Sud & Co. to get it right. Sarah Linden deserves no less.
(Spoiler Alert: Come back later if you didn't see last night's episode of "The Killing")
Maybe it's those always-cloudy days, not to mention the drizzle in Vancouver (masquerading as Seattle).
Maybe it's because the rare moments of happiness on the show are quickly followed by portent, implied danger or untimely demises.
It's a cocooned world where the promise of redemption is dashed by dark secrets. The chrysalis struggling to break free of this world is Detective Sarah Linden, played by the mesmerizing Mireille Enos. You root for Linden because she's as good an investigator as she is lousy at being a mom and picking men. More on that in a bit.
"The Killing" wrapped up its third season last night, which was something of a TV miracle after it had been canceled after season two by AMC following the Rosie Larsen debacle. Then content-hungry Netflix rode in to the rescue and paid for exclusive streaming rights, which allowed Fox to charge AMC less per episode and give "The Killing" new life.
Hence season three, for which viewers hungering for quality TV drama in the summer owe Netflix a huge debt of gratitude. For "The Killing" delivered its best effort yet. Showrunner Veena Sud didn't piss off viewers who saw their investment in emotional energy squandered in season one by an unnecessary cliffhanger.
Season four should be a no-brainer for all involved. Sud got it right, though maybe too right.
With last night's finale, we finally saw how the dueling plots of the investigation of the serial killer offing teen prostitutes and the impending execution of Ray Seward (a gripping Peter Saarsgard) were linked.
There was not one false note in the reveal that Linden's boss and sometime lover, Lt. James Skinner (Elias Koteas), was the killer of the girls. We found out Skinner had framed Seward for the murder of his wife, which led to Seward's hard-to-watch hanging in the penultimate episode.
In the finale, Seward's son, Adrian goes missing, soon after Linden and Holder realize it was Adrian--not his mother--who Skinner was after. Linden realizes Skinner was the killer after seeing his daughter wearing a ring that belonged to one of the victims.
After confronting him, Skinner claims Adrian is still alive but will only reveal where he is if Linden goes with him for what turns into a long drive to his lake house, during which he unfurls what's inside his sick mind. Linden is at once seething over what she is hearing and nauseated (literally) that this is a man who she had thought--as recently as that morning after a tryst--that she could make a life with and actually become happy for more than a fleeting moment.
But Adrian is not at the lake house. Skinner instead hints Adrian's in the trunk of the car. And dead (he's actually found hiding by his mother's gravestone). Linden shoots Skinner in the chest. Her partner, Stephen Holder (consistently the show's best-written character played by Joel Kinnaman) had gone to the house after piecing together where Skinner was headed. He tells Linden that Adrian is alive and that Skinner brought her to the house for her to kill him. That should be that. But Linden is too damaged. A lifetime of betrayal and disappointment has caught up to her. One more shot metes out final justice.
In a way, it makes sense. Linden and Holder can't ride off into the sunset. By my count, it was sunny about twice during the show's three seasons.
Still, Linden was in bad need of a reboot. Instead, she chose to become one with the abyss. This presents a problem in the putative season four. The secret she and Holder must keep will hover over any procedural surrounding the next sicko they chase after.
Their pathos--Holder is a recovering drug addict, among other issues--has always existed side-by-side with the murder probes and frequently intersected. But the thread of cop-turned-cop killer threatens to overwhelm all else. Having such an event serve as the locus of a program is what faces AMC's newest offering, Low Winter Sun. It's a premise that threatens to be more tiring than compelling as viewers wonder how long can this be sustained. The answer: not long at all, and the British version on which "Low Winter Sun" is based was only a miniseries.
As for "The Killing," this season affirmed it merits the benefit of the doubt. Root for Sud & Co. to get it right. Sarah Linden deserves no less.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Headlines Take Different Path to Bradley Manning Verdict
Same Story, Different Entry Points
As the alerts rolled out after the verdict on WikiLeaker Bradley Manning was delivered, news outlets alerted mobile and online users in different ways that caught your attention if not provided the full picture.
There was The Washington Post, which said "Army Pfc. Bradley Manning acquitted of aiding the enemy." But there was the "but" part of the verdict that was omitted.
That part was the hed for the AP version: "Manning convicted of 5 espionage counts in WikiLeaks case," though the lede started out with the acquittal on the most serious charge.
The New York Times, on the other hand, went all Solomonic for its alert: "Manning Not Guilty of Aiding the Enemy, but Convicted of Multiple Other Counts."
And those multiple counts count. If Manning had been convicted of aiding the enemy he would have faced life in prison without parole. But the five other convictions could put him away for up to 130 years. Manning will begin to get an idea of just how long he will get up close and personal with his cell tomorrow, when his sentencing hearing starts.
As the alerts rolled out after the verdict on WikiLeaker Bradley Manning was delivered, news outlets alerted mobile and online users in different ways that caught your attention if not provided the full picture.
There was The Washington Post, which said "Army Pfc. Bradley Manning acquitted of aiding the enemy." But there was the "but" part of the verdict that was omitted.
That part was the hed for the AP version: "Manning convicted of 5 espionage counts in WikiLeaks case," though the lede started out with the acquittal on the most serious charge.
The New York Times, on the other hand, went all Solomonic for its alert: "Manning Not Guilty of Aiding the Enemy, but Convicted of Multiple Other Counts."
And those multiple counts count. If Manning had been convicted of aiding the enemy he would have faced life in prison without parole. But the five other convictions could put him away for up to 130 years. Manning will begin to get an idea of just how long he will get up close and personal with his cell tomorrow, when his sentencing hearing starts.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Jew Just Don't Get It, Dave Adlerstein
Jewish Editor in Florida Still in Denial Over Anti-Semitic Crack From Local Pol
There's a time when you have to take your lumps and admit that you're wrong. Dave Adlerstein has the lumps part down cold. As for being wrong? Well, let's just say he has a way to go on that account.
Adlerstein is the city editor of the Apalachicola & Carabelle Times, a small weekly in northwest Florida, where he has parked himself for the last dozen years.
As we wrote on Monday, Adlerstein quoted Franklin County commissioner Cheryl Sanders during a debate over salaries as saying:
“Today’s not the day to do it,” said Sanders. “We’re her (for Nabors’ salary), not to be up here jewing over somebody’s pay. I can’t believe that you all would put a man down who has worked here for 26 years because he don’t have a high school education.”
It was bad enough that Sanders said what she did and some people were caught by surprise that Adlerstein used the quote directly. As he should have. But what's gave this story legs are comments Adlerstein made to Jim Romenesko about why, as a Jew, he wasn't hurt by the remark.
"It doesn’t offend me, unless it’s used to describe someone who cheats you. But haggling and dickering? To me, it’s a proud trait of my tribe, and it’s a solid cut above cold-hearted stiffing someone with a pious grin."
Understandably, Adlerstein came under fire by commenters on Romenesko's blog (including me) for either being disingenuous or completely clueless. You'd think that upon further reflection he'd realize that there was something wrong about what he--and Sanders--said. Guess again.
As he told Annie Groer of The Washington Post yesterday the remark is "not being used as an anti-Semitic crack. If that sounds like I’m an apologist, that is not me. I am not a self-hating Jew and I am not an ignorant Jew who is unaware of the pain of my people.”
Really?
Adlerstein tried to show Groer he knows anti-Semitism when he hears it, because his father was head of the Anti-Defamation League in Columbus, Ohio. But that only makes his defense of Sanders even worse.
When Adlerstein says "jewing" is not an "anti-Semitic crack," then what the hell is it? Throw out his lame rationale that it has an analog with "haggling and dickering" and you're left with only one choice. It's only a part of the vernacular among people who don't like Jews. Or just don't know any better. Or both.
Sanders, of all people, realizes this. “It was a bad choice of words and it should not have been made," the Tallahassee Democrat reported. "In no way, shape or form did I mean it to be derogatory or negative, and so I just want to make an apology for that.”
Putting aside the question of what did she mean "jewing" to be if not "derogatory or negative," Sanders, at least, realizes it was a dumb thing to say even during a heated debate. It's time for Adlerstein to do the same and become aware of the pain of his people.
There's a time when you have to take your lumps and admit that you're wrong. Dave Adlerstein has the lumps part down cold. As for being wrong? Well, let's just say he has a way to go on that account.
Adlerstein is the city editor of the Apalachicola & Carabelle Times, a small weekly in northwest Florida, where he has parked himself for the last dozen years.
As we wrote on Monday, Adlerstein quoted Franklin County commissioner Cheryl Sanders during a debate over salaries as saying:
“Today’s not the day to do it,” said Sanders. “We’re her (for Nabors’ salary), not to be up here jewing over somebody’s pay. I can’t believe that you all would put a man down who has worked here for 26 years because he don’t have a high school education.”
It was bad enough that Sanders said what she did and some people were caught by surprise that Adlerstein used the quote directly. As he should have. But what's gave this story legs are comments Adlerstein made to Jim Romenesko about why, as a Jew, he wasn't hurt by the remark.
"It doesn’t offend me, unless it’s used to describe someone who cheats you. But haggling and dickering? To me, it’s a proud trait of my tribe, and it’s a solid cut above cold-hearted stiffing someone with a pious grin."
Understandably, Adlerstein came under fire by commenters on Romenesko's blog (including me) for either being disingenuous or completely clueless. You'd think that upon further reflection he'd realize that there was something wrong about what he--and Sanders--said. Guess again.
As he told Annie Groer of The Washington Post yesterday the remark is "not being used as an anti-Semitic crack. If that sounds like I’m an apologist, that is not me. I am not a self-hating Jew and I am not an ignorant Jew who is unaware of the pain of my people.”
Really?
Adlerstein tried to show Groer he knows anti-Semitism when he hears it, because his father was head of the Anti-Defamation League in Columbus, Ohio. But that only makes his defense of Sanders even worse.
When Adlerstein says "jewing" is not an "anti-Semitic crack," then what the hell is it? Throw out his lame rationale that it has an analog with "haggling and dickering" and you're left with only one choice. It's only a part of the vernacular among people who don't like Jews. Or just don't know any better. Or both.
Sanders, of all people, realizes this. “It was a bad choice of words and it should not have been made," the Tallahassee Democrat reported. "In no way, shape or form did I mean it to be derogatory or negative, and so I just want to make an apology for that.”
Putting aside the question of what did she mean "jewing" to be if not "derogatory or negative," Sanders, at least, realizes it was a dumb thing to say even during a heated debate. It's time for Adlerstein to do the same and become aware of the pain of his people.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Cruise Ad Sails Too Close for Comfort at Conde Nast Traveler
Placement for Norwegian Haven Promo a Little Too Convenient
I've long been a reader of Conde Nast Traveler for its mix of solid reporting, useful advice (thanks, always, Wendy Perrin) and articles about destinations that transport me to my recurring win-Powerball daydream.
One reason is CN Traveler takes its slogan "Truth in Travel" seriously. There's a strict no-junket policy. If a writer went somewhere, the magazine picked up the tab (lucky writer). In the August issue (not yet online), there's an intriguing article about how some cruise lines are creating ships-within-a-ship for passengers who pay handsomely to sail in a premium section closed off to the hordes on the Lido Deck.
One such sanctuary is called The Haven (left) on Norwegian Cruise Line. So, it was a little curious and somewhat dispiriting to see in the August issue an article, in part, about The Haven experience, paired up with an advertorial about, natch, The Haven.
Now, to be fair, CN Traveler is always filled with special advertising sections and advertorials. It's how you pay for a reporter and photographer to do proper justice to the Himalayan temples of Nepal (p. 74). Even so, editorial and advertising should have put their heads together a little more effectively on the placement for this promo.
To be sure, writer Christian Wright's account of her experience in The Haven, which she contrasted with a stay in the more-egalitarian part of the ship was hardly an unqualified rave. Far from it. But the ad should have had some distance from her dispatch, otherwise readers can't help but wonder exactly whose truth is being told.
One reason is CN Traveler takes its slogan "Truth in Travel" seriously. There's a strict no-junket policy. If a writer went somewhere, the magazine picked up the tab (lucky writer). In the August issue (not yet online), there's an intriguing article about how some cruise lines are creating ships-within-a-ship for passengers who pay handsomely to sail in a premium section closed off to the hordes on the Lido Deck.
One such sanctuary is called The Haven (left) on Norwegian Cruise Line. So, it was a little curious and somewhat dispiriting to see in the August issue an article, in part, about The Haven experience, paired up with an advertorial about, natch, The Haven.
Now, to be fair, CN Traveler is always filled with special advertising sections and advertorials. It's how you pay for a reporter and photographer to do proper justice to the Himalayan temples of Nepal (p. 74). Even so, editorial and advertising should have put their heads together a little more effectively on the placement for this promo.
To be sure, writer Christian Wright's account of her experience in The Haven, which she contrasted with a stay in the more-egalitarian part of the ship was hardly an unqualified rave. Far from it. But the ad should have had some distance from her dispatch, otherwise readers can't help but wonder exactly whose truth is being told.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Editor Insists Anti-Semitic Remarks OK When It's Your Neighbors Making Them
Oy, Go Away
Jim Romenesko has an item today about how an editor at a Florida weekly raised some eyebrows when he directly quoted one official making an anti-Semitic remark at a county commissioners meeting.
During a discussion over the salary for the new head of the Franklin County road department, chair Cheryl Sanders said:
“Today’s not the day to do it,” said Sanders. “We’re her (for Nabors’ salary), not to be up here jewing over somebody’s pay. I can’t believe that you all would put a man down who has worked here for 26 years because he don’t have a high school education.”
This, according to the account written by city editor David Adlerstein of the Apalachicola & Carabelle Times. Adlerstein. As in Jew.
It wasn't that Adlerstein got the remark wrong. He had it on tape. A few readers, he told Romenesko, were startled that he used it, even though it was a direct quote of an official. But here's the part that gets me scratching. As he told Romenesko in an email:
“I have heard the expression on more than one occasion around these parts in my dozen years at the paper. It doesn’t offend me, unless it’s used to describe someone who cheats you. But haggling and dickering? To me, it’s a proud trait of my tribe, and it’s a solid cut above cold-hearted stiffing someone with a pious grin. But that’s me."
Damn right, that's you. I find Adlerstein's response, as a member of said tribe, more offensive than what Sanders uttered. It's one thing to spend 12 years editing a weekly newspaper in the Florida Panhandle, where Jews are badly outnumbered, and become inured to remarks from the idiots among the populace, elected or no. But if you're truly proud of your tribe, Dave, then you would know that "jewing" is not a verb that has entered the lexicon as a synonym for "haggling and dickering." At least, not by those who aren't anti-Semitic.
And since when was the fine art of haggling confined to Jews? Anyone who visits a bazaar in Turkey, the night markets in Hong Kong, hell, a flea market anywhere in this country knows better. Adlerstein needs to get out more. He can use some enlightenment, along with Sanders.
Jim Romenesko has an item today about how an editor at a Florida weekly raised some eyebrows when he directly quoted one official making an anti-Semitic remark at a county commissioners meeting.
During a discussion over the salary for the new head of the Franklin County road department, chair Cheryl Sanders said:
“Today’s not the day to do it,” said Sanders. “We’re her (for Nabors’ salary), not to be up here jewing over somebody’s pay. I can’t believe that you all would put a man down who has worked here for 26 years because he don’t have a high school education.”
This, according to the account written by city editor David Adlerstein of the Apalachicola & Carabelle Times. Adlerstein. As in Jew.
It wasn't that Adlerstein got the remark wrong. He had it on tape. A few readers, he told Romenesko, were startled that he used it, even though it was a direct quote of an official. But here's the part that gets me scratching. As he told Romenesko in an email:
“I have heard the expression on more than one occasion around these parts in my dozen years at the paper. It doesn’t offend me, unless it’s used to describe someone who cheats you. But haggling and dickering? To me, it’s a proud trait of my tribe, and it’s a solid cut above cold-hearted stiffing someone with a pious grin. But that’s me."
Damn right, that's you. I find Adlerstein's response, as a member of said tribe, more offensive than what Sanders uttered. It's one thing to spend 12 years editing a weekly newspaper in the Florida Panhandle, where Jews are badly outnumbered, and become inured to remarks from the idiots among the populace, elected or no. But if you're truly proud of your tribe, Dave, then you would know that "jewing" is not a verb that has entered the lexicon as a synonym for "haggling and dickering." At least, not by those who aren't anti-Semitic.
And since when was the fine art of haggling confined to Jews? Anyone who visits a bazaar in Turkey, the night markets in Hong Kong, hell, a flea market anywhere in this country knows better. Adlerstein needs to get out more. He can use some enlightenment, along with Sanders.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Headline of the Day
From the New York Post, about a dustup a prominent TV meteorologist had with his estranged wife:
"Ballbuster wife" is teste: WABC weatherman Bill Evans claims low blow in car fight
The story is pretty good too, in the Post's uniquely prurient sort of way.
It's not every day that a reporter gets to write that Evans told police his wife “grabbed the waist band of his underwear and reached for his scrotum with her free hand, subsequently scratching it, which resulted in bleeding."
And that's from the affidavit given to police. You really can't make this stuff up.
"Ballbuster wife" is teste: WABC weatherman Bill Evans claims low blow in car fight
It's not every day that a reporter gets to write that Evans told police his wife “grabbed the waist band of his underwear and reached for his scrotum with her free hand, subsequently scratching it, which resulted in bleeding."
And that's from the affidavit given to police. You really can't make this stuff up.
The Truth Comes In For a Crash Landing at The New York Times
Noah Gallagher Shannon Backpedals; Hugo Lindgren Keeps Wiping Egg From Face
It's the embellishment that won't go away.
You might remember that compelling Lives column in The New York Times magazine last month in which Noah Gallagher Shannon wrote about two hours worth of anxious moments when the flight he was on prepared for an emergency landing that might not have ended well.
It was a gripping read. Only problem: it didn't ring true with a lot of people. Which is a problem, as the Lives column is meant for nonfiction accounts. In other words, real things that happened in real life. And, yes, maybe a lot of people were caught up in the story initially to not ask, "Hey, how come I never heard about this?" That soon changed.
The man who has most been on the case trying to unspool this yarn has been the great James Fallows at The Atlantic. Last week he interviewed Shannon, who acknowledged he was not as fastidious as he should have been for an account that Fallows labels as "plainly false."
It was driven home to me that it was wrong to give the impression of certainty, of fact, and the things I was a little uncertain or hazy on, I should have qualified those observations, and I think that would have been the better journalistic thing to do--or done more background research. But I didn't at the time, and I have to apologize to the readers and The New York Times for that, and I take full responsibility.
That's a stand-up response and a better one than the B.S. first offered up by Times magazine editor Hugo Lindgren, who labeled the narrative a "personal experience of a fearful moment." Except, it appears, that fear trumped many of the facts surrounding what actually happened.
This is yet another example of how editors give more of a pass to memoirs than for other nonfiction. Too often, even when there is fact-checking, we are inclined to take the author at his word. That rabbit hole turned into a full-sized crater back in 2006, when James Frey fessed up that "A Million Little Pieces" was essentially a work of fiction. Even so, his editor Nan Talese foolishly defended the genre by insisting a memoir was an author's impression of how something happened. And if it never happened? Not a problem, so long as there was an impression that it had occurred. It was a lame explanation then, and Lindgren's variation also comes up short.
Even the Times realizes this, as public editor Margaret Sullivan pointed out yesterday. "The Times needs to stand for truth, not truthiness – yes, even in a memoir-style feature article in the magazine."
She later added: "I have reason to believe that in the next day or so, Mr. Lindgren may amplify his current note to readers ... It would be a good move — as would linking to that blog post from the online version of the original article, which is not the case now. A straight-up acknowledgement of the factual problems of this article is the only way out of this."
It's the embellishment that won't go away.
You might remember that compelling Lives column in The New York Times magazine last month in which Noah Gallagher Shannon wrote about two hours worth of anxious moments when the flight he was on prepared for an emergency landing that might not have ended well.
It was a gripping read. Only problem: it didn't ring true with a lot of people. Which is a problem, as the Lives column is meant for nonfiction accounts. In other words, real things that happened in real life. And, yes, maybe a lot of people were caught up in the story initially to not ask, "Hey, how come I never heard about this?" That soon changed.
The man who has most been on the case trying to unspool this yarn has been the great James Fallows at The Atlantic. Last week he interviewed Shannon, who acknowledged he was not as fastidious as he should have been for an account that Fallows labels as "plainly false."
It was driven home to me that it was wrong to give the impression of certainty, of fact, and the things I was a little uncertain or hazy on, I should have qualified those observations, and I think that would have been the better journalistic thing to do--or done more background research. But I didn't at the time, and I have to apologize to the readers and The New York Times for that, and I take full responsibility.
That's a stand-up response and a better one than the B.S. first offered up by Times magazine editor Hugo Lindgren, who labeled the narrative a "personal experience of a fearful moment." Except, it appears, that fear trumped many of the facts surrounding what actually happened.
This is yet another example of how editors give more of a pass to memoirs than for other nonfiction. Too often, even when there is fact-checking, we are inclined to take the author at his word. That rabbit hole turned into a full-sized crater back in 2006, when James Frey fessed up that "A Million Little Pieces" was essentially a work of fiction. Even so, his editor Nan Talese foolishly defended the genre by insisting a memoir was an author's impression of how something happened. And if it never happened? Not a problem, so long as there was an impression that it had occurred. It was a lame explanation then, and Lindgren's variation also comes up short.
Even the Times realizes this, as public editor Margaret Sullivan pointed out yesterday. "The Times needs to stand for truth, not truthiness – yes, even in a memoir-style feature article in the magazine."
She later added: "I have reason to believe that in the next day or so, Mr. Lindgren may amplify his current note to readers ... It would be a good move — as would linking to that blog post from the online version of the original article, which is not the case now. A straight-up acknowledgement of the factual problems of this article is the only way out of this."
Tuesday, June 04, 2013
A Dishonest Takedown of "Revenge Wears Prada"
N.Y. Daily News Critic Shows True Colors in Review. Green With Envy?
I've done enough reviews of music, TV, films and books to know that, over time, you're going to dislike more than you like. It's part of the game.
No doubt, it's also more fun to write reviews of dreck. The adjectives flow more freely. You're angry that you had to waste your time--notwithstanding the fact that you're getting paid to do so--and you want the world to know that in no uncertain terms. But at least when I did a takedown I was fair. And honest.
The same can't be said about Sheryl Connelly, the book editor at the Daily News in New York (given how the News has been gutting its staff lately I'm surprised Connelly is still on the payroll, but that's for another day).
Connelly went into the storeroom for a few extra gallons of venom to review "Revenge Wears Prada," the sequel to mega-bestseller "The Devil Wears Prada," by Lauren Weisberger. The book, which was released today, will undoubtedly attract a lot of attention and sales based on its pedigree. Connelly, shall we say, is not a fan. In fact, she's more bitchy about Revenge AND Weisberger than Miranda Priestly on her worst day.
Sure, she's entitled to her opinion, such as it is. But where I have a problem is at the end of the review when Connelly writes:
Full disclosure: In a recent conversation with the author, I told her I liked “Revenge Wears Prada.”
I lied politely only because the truth would have been as bad as the book.
It's dubious enough that critics are hanging out with those they would write about. It's not something you're supposed to do. But that Connelly would not only lie but seem to relish in telling us that she did so is bad form.
Lied politely? How about not saying anything at all? In that sense, Connelly is no better than many of the characters she professes to hate in the book.
Full disclosure: Lauren and her husband Mike are friends. And I haven't read the book yet. But trust me, she doesn't need me or anyone else to stand up for her. She'll do just fine, thank you, even in the face of reviewers who have an agenda--likely rooted in deep-seated jealousy that a young author hit it big, real big on her first try--that goes way beyond evaluating the worth of the book.
And that's the truth, more than Connelly is able to muster.
No doubt, it's also more fun to write reviews of dreck. The adjectives flow more freely. You're angry that you had to waste your time--notwithstanding the fact that you're getting paid to do so--and you want the world to know that in no uncertain terms. But at least when I did a takedown I was fair. And honest.
The same can't be said about Sheryl Connelly, the book editor at the Daily News in New York (given how the News has been gutting its staff lately I'm surprised Connelly is still on the payroll, but that's for another day).
Connelly went into the storeroom for a few extra gallons of venom to review "Revenge Wears Prada," the sequel to mega-bestseller "The Devil Wears Prada," by Lauren Weisberger. The book, which was released today, will undoubtedly attract a lot of attention and sales based on its pedigree. Connelly, shall we say, is not a fan. In fact, she's more bitchy about Revenge AND Weisberger than Miranda Priestly on her worst day.
Sure, she's entitled to her opinion, such as it is. But where I have a problem is at the end of the review when Connelly writes:
Full disclosure: In a recent conversation with the author, I told her I liked “Revenge Wears Prada.”
I lied politely only because the truth would have been as bad as the book.
It's dubious enough that critics are hanging out with those they would write about. It's not something you're supposed to do. But that Connelly would not only lie but seem to relish in telling us that she did so is bad form.
Lied politely? How about not saying anything at all? In that sense, Connelly is no better than many of the characters she professes to hate in the book.
Full disclosure: Lauren and her husband Mike are friends. And I haven't read the book yet. But trust me, she doesn't need me or anyone else to stand up for her. She'll do just fine, thank you, even in the face of reviewers who have an agenda--likely rooted in deep-seated jealousy that a young author hit it big, real big on her first try--that goes way beyond evaluating the worth of the book.
And that's the truth, more than Connelly is able to muster.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
The Lord Could Not Be Reached For Comment
Wolf Blitzer Gets A Dose of Religion from an Atheist
Tug McGraw once said "Ya gotta believe."
Well, not everybody, as Wolf Blitzer found out on CNN yesterday while chatting with a Moore tornado survivor.
Blitzer asked her: "You gotta thank The Lord, right?"
The response, in the nicest way: "I'm actually an atheist."
And she was quick to add: "I don't blame anybody for thanking the Lord."
Blitzer can say amen to that.
Tug McGraw once said "Ya gotta believe."
Well, not everybody, as Wolf Blitzer found out on CNN yesterday while chatting with a Moore tornado survivor.
Blitzer asked her: "You gotta thank The Lord, right?"
The response, in the nicest way: "I'm actually an atheist."
And she was quick to add: "I don't blame anybody for thanking the Lord."
Blitzer can say amen to that.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Same-Sex Donations Come to the Web
amfAR Makes Sure All Couples Can Reveal Their Charitable Side
Like other charities, amfAR, the AIDS research group, lists titles in a dropdown menu on the form for people making an online donation. But theirs has a twist: For the first time I saw the options "Mr. and Mr." and "Ms. and Ms."
I guess it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, given that 11 states allow same-sex marriage, with a 12th, Minnesota, joining the roster in August. And given that amfAR's work obviously resonates with the gay population, such an option would appear to be a no-brainer.
Not so fast. I checked some other gay nonprofits to see where they're at. Lambda Legal doesn't have a dropdown menu, but it does have a space to fill in a partner's name. At Gay Men's Health Crisis, no "Mr. and Mr.," but you can identify with such titles as "Admiral," "Cantor," "Madam," or "Bishop" (good luck with those), while the Human Rights Campaign just wants first and last names. Maybe that's just HRC's way of trying to guilt spouses into donating too.
I guess it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, given that 11 states allow same-sex marriage, with a 12th, Minnesota, joining the roster in August. And given that amfAR's work obviously resonates with the gay population, such an option would appear to be a no-brainer.
Not so fast. I checked some other gay nonprofits to see where they're at. Lambda Legal doesn't have a dropdown menu, but it does have a space to fill in a partner's name. At Gay Men's Health Crisis, no "Mr. and Mr.," but you can identify with such titles as "Admiral," "Cantor," "Madam," or "Bishop" (good luck with those), while the Human Rights Campaign just wants first and last names. Maybe that's just HRC's way of trying to guilt spouses into donating too.
Oklahoma City Station Shows Why Numbers Matter Following Tornado
KFOR Falls Victim to Running With Faulty Tornado Death Toll
Not sure if it was a question of wanting to be first, but KFOR-TV, the NBC affiliate in Oklahoma City, was a little too jumpy today in wanting to revise the casualty count from the tornado that devastated Moore yesterday.
The station has actually been doing yeoman work over the last 24 hours, as evidenced by what I've seen on the live stream. But this morning, it's website said the death count had gone from 51 to 91, vaguely attributing that jump to the medical examiner's office.
Ordinarily, that should be enough to go on. However, others were not so quick. The Daily Oklahoman was sticking with 51, as did KOCO, the ABC affiliate. That turned out to be the right move, as the death toll was revised downward to 24.
How did that happen. As KFOR briefly explained on its website, officials were double-counting. Fair enough, if somewhat irresponsible on the part of authorities. But before the station reported that number, it should have dug a little deeper. Where did another 40 bodies emerge from? Reporters were continuously on the scene at Plaza Towers elementary school, the scene of the worst devastation. However, no one reported a steady stream of bodies being removed, even though it was apparent the effort there was one of recovery rather than rescue not long after the storm.
These are things that matter. It's of small comfort that not as many people perished in the storm. But it would be even more wrenching for people still looking for loved ones or trying to account for a relative's whereabouts to fear the worst when they hear the death toll take a big jump like that.
We saw this during Katrina and Sandy. It happened after the Boston Marathon bombings. Lots of information being bandied about, but not enough facts to back it up.
I've been there. I know how it is. It's the instinct of any reporter to want to be first. But it's so much more important to be right. It's troubling that in times of crisis, it's a lesson the media needs to keep learning over and over again.
Not sure if it was a question of wanting to be first, but KFOR-TV, the NBC affiliate in Oklahoma City, was a little too jumpy today in wanting to revise the casualty count from the tornado that devastated Moore yesterday.
The station has actually been doing yeoman work over the last 24 hours, as evidenced by what I've seen on the live stream. But this morning, it's website said the death count had gone from 51 to 91, vaguely attributing that jump to the medical examiner's office.
Ordinarily, that should be enough to go on. However, others were not so quick. The Daily Oklahoman was sticking with 51, as did KOCO, the ABC affiliate. That turned out to be the right move, as the death toll was revised downward to 24.
How did that happen. As KFOR briefly explained on its website, officials were double-counting. Fair enough, if somewhat irresponsible on the part of authorities. But before the station reported that number, it should have dug a little deeper. Where did another 40 bodies emerge from? Reporters were continuously on the scene at Plaza Towers elementary school, the scene of the worst devastation. However, no one reported a steady stream of bodies being removed, even though it was apparent the effort there was one of recovery rather than rescue not long after the storm.
These are things that matter. It's of small comfort that not as many people perished in the storm. But it would be even more wrenching for people still looking for loved ones or trying to account for a relative's whereabouts to fear the worst when they hear the death toll take a big jump like that.
We saw this during Katrina and Sandy. It happened after the Boston Marathon bombings. Lots of information being bandied about, but not enough facts to back it up.
I've been there. I know how it is. It's the instinct of any reporter to want to be first. But it's so much more important to be right. It's troubling that in times of crisis, it's a lesson the media needs to keep learning over and over again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)