Morning Ed: Media {2016.03.24.Th}

Brendan Nyhan tweetstorms the rise of Donald Trump, and the multifactorial institutional failures that made it happen, and Der Spiegel explains how the US media made it happen.

Likewise, conservative Jeff Blehar tweets his frustration at the media loop that assisted Trump so greatly, while John Ziegler has some harsher words for conservative media in particular.

If you’re looking for work at a growing and fast-paced publication, there are jobs available right now.

Mathew Ingram argues that the Justice Department isn’t helping the industry by preventing newspaper buyouts. It seems to me that consolidation is something that really is going to need to happen.

The Columbia Journalism Review looks at the cult of Vice.

An academic-to-English translator. Applies to certain bloggers, too. {shuffles feet}

Charley Locke argues that podcasts need to go multimedia to reach a larger audience. Is that true? One of the things I like about podcasts is that I can listen to them while doing other things.

Home Page Twitter Google+ Pinterest 

Will Truman is a former professional gearhead who is presently a stay-at-home father in the Mountain East. He has moved around frequently, having lived in six places since 2003, ranging from rural outposts to major metropolitan areas. He also writes fiction, when he finds the time. ...more →

Please do be so kind as to share this post.

45 thoughts on “Morning Ed: Media {2016.03.24.Th}

  1. Personally I can’t stand podcasts which is odd considering that they’re basically just a blog post read aloud. This is probably because I can’t multitask with someone yammering in my ear.


    • I don’t like them either. The are basically blog posts, but performed more or less extemporaneously in chatty language. Reading is faster than speaking, and any blogger whom I am willing to read produces a tighter work than would be natural in spoken language. The result is that the information density per unit of time is much lower in a podcast. If I didn’t have any other use of the commute driving time, I could see going the podcast route. But I do, and I don’t. And commute driving time is the only circumstance I can think of where listening to a podcast would just annoy me.


    • They’re basically talk radio with added convenience. The interview podcasts range in quality from the worst talk radio drivel, to the best radio interviews of interesting people by skillful and insightful interviewers.

      There’s plenty of audio drama distributed as podcasts too – at least where I am, audio plays don’t get aired on radio much anymore. Again, the quality ranges from the worst of what used to be played on radio, to the best of what used to be played on radio.

      Also lots of radio stations offer their music and news shows as podcasts, so you can listen to them at different times and in locations the station doesn’t reach.

      I quite like to listen to them when I clean or cook. I wouldn’t listen to them while commuting, because (1) I enjoy bicycling already, and (2) each thing would distract me from the other, so I’d be both less safe on the road and less able to enjoy the podcast.


    • Calling “podcasts” a thing is like calling “television programming” a thing. Podcasts are a diverse medium — unscripted interviews, solo, tandem, q-and-a, etc. — it seems odd to dislike them in their entirety unless you’re just not an auditory person.


  2. Academic to English translators will finally let people know that many academics are full of it. I don’t agree with Chomsky’s belief system but I do agree with his stance against obtuse writing. If you have something worthwhile to say about politics, history, literature, philosophy than it should be said so most people could understand it.

    Vice: The optimist in me still hopes that there is a market for Delayed Gratification magazine.

    Breitbart: We should stage a liberal takeover.

    Trump and the media: I still think that the Republican Party should take most of the blame for Trump’s rise. He is the natural result of a political strategy that was pursued since Nixon. The Republicans could have more or less developed a similar pro-market, anti-government, strong on national security, tough on crime stance without indulging some of the worst parts of American identity. They choose not to as an electoral strategy and are getting what they deserve good and hard because of that.


    • 1. I like the idea of Delayed Gratification magazine.

      2. Having been involved with academics at both a familial level and relationship level, that is just how they think, alway the biggest word possible, and six when one will do.

      3. Liberal takeover of Breitbart? Isn’t that the NYT? Or is it the new editor of the New Yorker? I kid.

      4. Trumps rise isn’t about one political party, its about one class. Its why the polls have been skewed for so long, why the pundits have not had a single correct assumption reguarding him, etc. The managment class has almost no idea what motivates the working class anymore, and the working class is letting them know. The left blaming him on the right is simply whistling past the graveyard.


    • He is the natural result of a political strategy that was pursued since Nixon. The Republicans could have more or less developed a similar pro-market, anti-government, strong on national security, tough on crime stance without indulging some of the worst parts of American identity.

      This is a nonsense statement. It also fancies that people who object to the various social projects which have been hatched by cadres making use of the Democratic Party as an electoral vehicle should adopt the disposition frequently attributed to battered wives: if other people attack you, it’s your fault. Thanks for the education.


      • I agree that it’s a nonsense statement, but I probably don’t agree with you on why (I don’t actually understand the logic of your second paragraph).

        I just think that a “pro-market, anti-government, strong on national security, tough on crime stance” pretty much is “some of the worst parts of the American identity”.

        It isn’t necessarily so if you just look at the words – but what policies can possibly come from a government having defined itself as “anti government”?

        As “tough on crime” in a country that already has the highest incarceration rates in the world and some of the highest recidivism rates in the developed world?

        As “strong on national security” in a country whose military might is already so overwhelming that it would probably win a war against every other country in the world ganging up together?

        You would have to first discard reality to actually do anything that looks like it emerges from that agenda.


Comments are closed.