tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post3161599961268468206..comments2024-03-28T02:30:08.913-04:00Comments on Not Just Movies: Page One: Inside the New York Times (Andrew Rossi, 2011)Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09078001374402400232noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post-91666479647516235142011-12-06T08:55:46.122-05:002011-12-06T08:55:46.122-05:00I think the movie succeeds, especially through Car...I think the movie succeeds, especially through Carr, in presenting an old-school attitude that shows why journalism matters (as you say, it hits the broad emotions). I think it also had some great moments that showed the myopic view of some of these would-be usurpers; my favorite moment in the film is that Intelligence Squared debate where Carr holds up the "Newser page" if newspapers really did die off and it's just an empty sheet with the content cut out.<br /><br />It's why I think Carr makes such a good pitch man not just for the Times but all print media. He's blunt, sarcastic yet clearly passionate, and I think he can frame an argument of textbook platitudes in such a way that those who don't think they need papers will suddenly pay attention.<br /><br />In fact, I think the doc is about as good as can be, which means it suffers the same seemingly insurmountable issues as its subject. I didn't expect this movie to have all the answers or even to really make an airtight case for print for my generation; if someone knew how to do that, they'd be on the Times payroll for an insane amount, not documenting them. My issues with it stem with my issues toward print media itself, which are largely presented without comment and in some cases tacitly supported. There is no easy answer to this, which is why I was disappointed the movie tried to find one wherever possible, even if they had to omit a whole bunch of pertinent info to do so.Jake Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15532951308638768249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post-24902043282707282782011-12-06T08:21:52.286-05:002011-12-06T08:21:52.286-05:00Damn, dude. The only folks I know who post as ofte...Damn, dude. The only folks I know who post as often as you have been lately are the folks from "Wow Gold." You're still, like, going to classes, I hope. :)<br /><br />Anyway, I've printed off several of your reviews to spread out over time, and of what I've read so far, this is one of my favorites. You capture well how Carr becomes the caped crusader of the doc, for better and worse.<br /><br />As for the implications of the doc ...<br /><br />I have lots of friends and family still in the newspaper business, or, because they bailed when they got the chance, just barely outside it. Of the few who have seen this, their reactions are a bit mixed: as newspaper junkies, this thing could have carried on for 8 hours and not totally satisfied them, and of course they're all too aware of the issues not examined to their fullest (tough crowd, journalists), but they also seem to think that the doc hits on the broad actions and emotions of what's been going on fairly well. And I'd agree. The most depressingly accurate line in the movie is the one from Carr, providing voice-over narration from one of his columns, talking about yet another party with sheet cake. Yep, that's been the way of things.<br /><br />FWIW …<br /><br />* I don’t begrudge the Times its new building. Lasting companies need adequate facilities, which means it was only a matter of time before they needed to build something, and whereas real estate eventually can be paid off, salaries of existing positions go on forever, so not building would have saved some staff for now but not forever.<br /><br />* I don’t think newspapers’ “PR issue” has much to do with how they got here. This process has been too gradual and long in coming for that. But I do think that PR issue will make it very challenging for newspapers to recover (already conceding they’ll never be what they were). That moment when Carr cuts out all the parasitic stories that relied on newspaper coverage to be authored in the first place? That’s a demonstration that the entire public needs, and yet they probably wouldn’t retain it. My generation (at the fringe end of Gen X) and the ones after it are under the false impression that they don’t read newspapers, even when they do, and that they don’t need them, even though they do, because sites like HuffPost (which I generally refuse to go to for this very reason) are so good at rewriting in an effort to seem original. (Aside: In my previous job, a high profile reporter from ESPN ripped off my story without attribution and then yelled at me for calling him on it. True story. Point being, even the big companies feed off one another, which just blurs the line.)<br /><br />* It’s interesting, but not all that surprising, that you found the doc seemed to have misplaced priorities – navel gazing in a time of world chaos. I see that now, but it didn’t occur to me during the film, because I was happy to have newspapers be the subject. It would be rude to compare laid off newspaper reporters eating sheet cake through teary eyes to US soldiers killed overseas. Nevertheless, newspapers are dying, and there is a human cost to that that’s very real, even if not as tragic as other things going on in the world. (I know you know this; just framing how I saw the movie.)<br /><br />OK, that’s ramble enough. I could chat about this subject for days.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.com