Save Bill Keller — From Himself
Sorry, but my BS Meter went to full tilt when I read this “clarification” from Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times. When he said that saving the Times was a cause similar to saving Darfur, you see, he didn’t really mean that saving the Times was like saving Darfur.
He merely meant that there were so many people so enthusiastic about saving newspapers — and The New York Times– that they demonstrated some of the same fervor of those who were worried about the fate of several hundred thousand people who have been murdered and displaced in Darfur.
You get it, don’t you? A big difference.
Maybe, in Keller’s mind.
To my mind, even if Keller is telling the truth (which I doubt), his asinine remark putting the possible collapse of a newspaper in the same category as an ongoing genocide reveals much about Keller’s corporate/professional psyche.
If we are to believe him, well, Keller — as opposed to, you know, the unwashed masses, is way too smart and sensitive and sophisticated to make such an insulting and demeaning comparison. But those common people on the other side of the glass, the hoi polloi, his readers, well, it seems, they are just so emotional about saving their beloved paper that they, in fact have made this cause as important as stopping a genocide. To them, not him.
Us — Them.
Reporter — Reader.
Newspaper — Audience.
And Mr. Keller wonders why The New York Times — and every other newspaper in America– is in crisis?
I don’t know, I work in a journalism school and there’s plenty of folks around me sincerely worried about the future of journalism. I am. Almost as much as I am worried about its checkered past. But I sense little of the crusading fervor that Keller imagines that the saving of his paper, or of any paper, evokes nowadays. Nostalgia, maybe. Some deep concern about how you pay for reporting.
But, sorry to be a wuss… I am infinitely more concerned about the world’s unwillingness to stop massacres like that in Darfur then I am worried about the future employment of some of the best-educated writers in America. They will find jobs if newspapers evaporate. Or better said, as they evaporate. I am also quite confident that while the world will or would be very different without newspapers of quality, like the Times, the world would not end. Information flow would not halt. Reporting would not vanish. News would not become obsolete. It would merely be different. That’s what change always brings–different ways of doing things. That’s how humanity progresses. By changing. Not by saving things that have become obsoltete.
The task before us (as I link once again to Clay Shirky’s recent brilliant essay) is not to save newspapers. But, rather, to make sure that quality journalism continues. That it outlives the death of its outmoded institutions. And, ultimately, that after its eventual re-invention (which still might be years off) it emerges with an ethos more populist, more democratic, more conversational, more respectful of its consumers than the arrogant model embodied in the words of Keller. And one might even be so bold to wish that in its next life, journalism might even be better than it has to date. It’s possible, you know.
And for those who might think I am blind to the flaws in the still-to-mature New Media, I would point you to this piece. I think my views are made quite clear.
——————– + ———————-
Please subscribe to my Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/marc_cooper
Watch my regular Video Blogs by subscribing at http://www.youtube.com/McooperTube
April 7th, 2009 at 4:00 am
When the news-rags shutter their windows the good journalists will find a vehicle for their good journalism.
The newspapers dying will not kill off the good journalists – just reassign them.
The WaPo and NTY’s are dying from self inflicted wounds.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:16 am
When the Times start holding “pledge weeks”, will they use the same bait’n'switch tactics as PBS? Profiles of Marty Robbins amd Lawrence Welk? Reprints of old Cal Thomas columns?
April 7th, 2009 at 4:18 am
Marc: News would not become obsolete. It would merely be different.
Like something you could actually trust.
April 7th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Reminds me of when John Lennon said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ…of course his remark made a valid sociological point.
And in a perverse way– so does Keller’s. You can bet there are well off people who– as always–who will rush with cash in hand to help save some iconic institution that is part of the iconography that defines their status as well.
Keller’s remark is vile and revealing because it is precisely the job of a New York Times to make sure that information about genocide in a Darfur is dynamically reported. Seems he is so corrupt he was unable to make the logical save.
The only problem for journalism, Mark, is the need now for journalists to administer their own craft. Form co-0ps or unions that provide the support ;infrastructure that newspapers provided. You guys will have to start self organizing; draw up ethics rules and create the same cachet out of your reporter’s unions that a newspaper would earn through its reporting.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Keller probably regrets making the remark… not the first regrettable one he has made. He spoke at my college graduation in 2002, and made a pretty unfortunate endorsement of the “Bush-WMD” propaganda. Significant, considering the Times coverage after.
However, I have heard the guy speak several times and he is a bright guy- and not oblivious to the changes that journalism is going through. I’m sure in his heart of hearts he really doesn’t believe saving the NY Times to be of the same importance as preventing genocide in Darfur.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Marc, I am return the offer of some medication. Sit back, relax and enjoy some dog DaDa. Online journalism at its finest:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/video/2009/apr/06/jake-dinos-chapman-dog-whitechapel
April 7th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I think Keller ought to have put a little more mea culpa in his apology, but this kind of piling on is also a little silly. I cannot imagine Keller actually thinks the issues are comparable and, indeed, his clarification suggests, albeit pridefully, that he does not.
Let me also add that while newspapers may suffering, the NY Times is not going anywhere. It’s the big dog and and the place for a lot of national and international news. The NY Times may be hurting right now, but I suspect they’ll come out of this far better off than most dailies.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Whoops. That last post was me!
April 7th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Caught ya’!
April 7th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Obama is galavanting around the mideast, forcing others to do his job of throwing out the ceremonial first pitch. Maybe Keller missed that.
April 7th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
I’m taking bets that the NY Times is among the big winners in this journalistic meltdown. Sure, it’s having financial troubles now, but no more and, indeed, probably less, than the typical large to mid-sized American corporation is having.
There is the added layer that the Internet is undermining ad growth for print publications, but, again, the NYT is in a good position to make the best of that, as its Web site gets massive hits.
I’d much rather be the NYT than any of its competitors, including Rupert Murdoch’s trashy rags, while making an exception for the WSJ, which is well disposed to win.
April 8th, 2009 at 3:36 am
I dunno, how much faith do you have in what you might call the cause judgment of the American chattering classes? I reckon saving the New York Times absolutely “ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause.” If you were talking to any high-minded people a few years back, so did putting down the fad for Ugg boots.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:43 am
I’m so high-minded I have no idea what “Ugg boots” are.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:04 am
reg -
“I’m so high-minded I have no idea what “Ugg boots” are.”
If you had a young(ish) daughter, you’d know.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:15 am
hey, I set up a group on linkedin for anyone named mark cooper, or marc cooper, and you are invited! its a very exclusive group.
search groups “is your name mark cooper” or mark cooper.
mark cooper (san francisco)