Links for the Day (August 1st, 2008)

Links for the Day (August 1st, 2008)

By Keith Uhlich on August 1, 2008 in Links for the Day Jump to Comments (0)

1. "The Star-Ledger announces large-scale buyout offer": News from Matt Seitz's old haunt, via Alan Sepinwall, who offers a brief reaction.

["The owners of The Star-Ledger announced today they will sell the newspaper if they cannot win union concessions and persuade a large number of non-union, full-time workers to take buyouts in the next two months. The owners set a deadline of Oct. 1 for getting 200 of the paper's 756 non-union full-time employees to take a buyout and for achieving the union concessions. The paper's total workforce is 1,412. The offer comes at a time when the newspaper industry is reeling from plunging advertising revenues linked to a troubled economy and the growth of online media. The news was announced to grim-faced employees by Publisher George E. Arwady at the paper's headquarters in Newark this morning. He characterized the paper as being "on life support" and urged employees to consider the offer for the good of fellow employees. "Despite the best efforts of all of us, The Star-Ledger is losing a battle to survive," Arwady said, noting the paper has suffered heavy losses the past two years. "If the Ledger is to have a future, it must make further changes in how it operates.""]

***

2. "Hell Hath No Fury Like a Fanboy Scorned (or: Why exactly must Keith Uhlich die?)": Filmbrain joins the Dark Knight fray, my name invoked. Related: Ian Pugh's latest post at the Film Freak Central blog.

["Why so serious indeed? If ever a tagline was perfectly suited to a film (and the critical/audience adoration of it) it would have to be this three word gem created by a marketing superhero for Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, the film that currently sits at #1 on the IMDB Top 250 films of all time, and has been proven to cure cancer, put an end to all wars, and solve erectile dysfunction. As with most long-underwear films (why must superheroes wear tights?), it's not uncommon for the legion of fanboys (and girls) to take it as a personal affront when confronted with a dissenting opinion. However, if you consider the emotional and financial investment given to comic books, figurines and other items related to the mythology, it's not terribly surprising that anyone daring to criticize the celluloid representation of their idol is treated like a heretic. Yet with The Dark Knight, the seething anger and raging bile that's been ejaculated on dozens (if not hundreds) of pages of comments all over the Interweb far exceeds the typical zealotry. Nolan's film is stirring up reactions and emotions that I've heretofore never encountered, and I've spent the past few days trying to figure out why."]

***

3. "And Busby Berkeley would sh*t, I know...": The latest installment of "Best Pictures From the Outside In," hosted at Nick's Flick Picks, examining Cavalcade and Chicago.

["The contrast in my first two viewings of Chicago still summarizes what I admire about it and what I don't. On opening day, in the huge and gaudy/splendid Clearview Ziegfeld in New York City, with a sold-out crowd squeezed in among all the red velvet walls and sitting before the huge screen, Chicago was spectacular entertainment. Energetic, sleek-looking, designed for 100% entertainment in the moment. And I agree that Renée aced the daydreaminess but also the brittleness and smallness of Roxie. A great audience surrogate, selling the conceit of Roxie's "mind's eye" with no problem—partially through her own newness to the genre but also through some really smart acting, especially in her book scenes. Two months later, in a smaller, gummier theater, with my partner, who totally cares about musical execution and coherent physical performance in a way that I don't, Chicago looked slipshod and a little desperate."]

***

4. "What...Fisticuffs?": Maul of America responds to Dennis Lim's history of the fight scene.

["Dennis Lim's "Let's Step Outside" tries to give an overview of the evolution of cinematic fight scenes. He does a decent job of explaining one of my major pet peeves—mainly attempts to take a more "realistic" approach to staging cinematic donnybrooks that end up being SO over-choreographed that they lose all credibility and so over-editted that they're hard to follow. The Bourne series is the worst offender in my opinion. The tone of most, if not all, of the major Bourne battles is self-congratulatory (as in, look how cool we are). In the interests of full disclosure, I don't buy Matt Damon as a tough guy anymore than I think he's the "sexiest man alive." My main issue with Lim's piece is that he leaves out some of the most notable cinematic fight scenes. Including, John Wayne's battle at the end of The Quiet Man, and ALL of the James Bond movies. Whatever Happened to Great Fight Scenes?, by Glenn Erickson (hat tip: Drake), does a better job and includes more details. Yet, his list isn't exactly what I would have chosen either. Well, if you want something done right... So, here's a rundown of my favorite fight scenes."]

***

5. "Thousands laid off in California": The Governator brings out the big guns.

["Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California has moved to end a budget crisis by sacking 22,000 state workers and ordering pay cuts for 200,000. The most populous state in the US faces a budget deficit of more than $15bn (£7.6bn), and legislators are struggling to agree a spending plan. The cuts, which will save $100m a month, are designed to put pressure on politicians to end the budget crisis. But a leading official in the state challenged the decision to cut pay. California has one of the largest economies in the world and it has no way to pay contractors for many of the services it provides. Some 30 American states face budget deficits caused by rising costs and falling revenues in a slumping economy but California's is by far the largest."]

***

Quote of the Day: Anton Chekhov

"We shall find peace. We shall hear the angels, we shall see the sky sparkling with diamonds."

***
Image of the Day (click to enlarge): NASA confirms water on Mars.

***
Clip of the Day: A currently controversial attack ad by Camp McCain on Camp Obama. With a CBS News report on the ad.

_____________________________________________________
"Links for the Day": Each morning, the House editors post a series of weblinks that we think will spark discussion. Comments encouraged. Suggestions for links are also welcome. Please send to keithuhlich@gmail.com.

TAGS: links for the day

I really do think there's still room for the newspaper, but most print products are simply getting too reactive. They haven't taken the time to figure out what it is that people enjoy about Internet news and how they can enhance their brand by using the Internet wisely. Instead, they just throw Internet content at the wall willy-nilly and hope that something sticks.

At least, that's why I got out of the business.
Posted by Todd on 2008-08-03 05:16:00 I don't think journalism itself is dying. But I do think that written journalism, the business, is based upon outmoded assumptions about how people live, how they seek out and digest news, and how they seek out goods and services. Print journalism has to figure out how to reach people in a new way (without the print part), or else combine with other forms of journalism to create a hybrid form (which is something newspapers tried to do, too late in most cases -- the Ledger's first news podcast went up July 28 of this year).

I interviewed Peter Arnett about seven years ago, after he'd been driven out of CNN and signed up to report for an Internet-only foreign news website. At the time he predicted that distinctions between different kinds of news media (print, TV, radio, Internet) would be erased within ten years and the only thing left would be "The news," and individual consumers would decide what form that news would take. At the time I thought his prediction had a touch of science fiction, but it seems to be coming to pass. The only question is whether one can base a profession upon it.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-08-02 03:08:00 I just felt like I had to say something regarding #1, only because I also work at a newspaper---The Wall Street Journal---and have seen some scary things going on there as well.

Case in point, for those who haven't heard about this: a couple of weeks ago, Dow Jones announced that it was restructuring some of the Journal's operations that are going on in its South Brunswick branch---its copy-editing desk, its pagination desk, and others---and moving all those operations to New York, in effect shutting down much of the South Brunswick branch. For the copy desk---of which I was a part as an intern for about 10 weeks last summer---this meant that everyone was getting laid off, but that everyone was welcome to apply for about 24 new jobs within the company that would combine copy-editing duties with possibly other skill sets. Of course, that means not everyone will be guaranteed the new jobs---meaning a lot of people may be kept in suspense for a few weeks longer just to find out that they will no longer have a position within the company anymore.

Wow. The poor copy editors and paginators in South Brunswick pretty much had this news drop into their laps one day out of nowhere. Now, in a way, they're being asked, in a sense, to compete with each other for the new N.Y. jobs. Cold-blooded.

I can only imagine what it must feel like to be shocked and jolted into confronting the prospect of life after a job layoff in such a short amount of time, especially for some of the folks at the copy desk, who have been working there for years.

But such is the nature of the print-journalism world these days, it seems---and every day, especially this year, comes news that makes us face the grim realities of what is looking increasingly to be a dying business (print journalism, not journalism in general---at least, I hope not).
Posted by kenjfuj on 2008-08-02 03:01:00 Z: "The box office returns prove nothing except that a lot of people went to see a certain movie... Indiana Jones 4 was a massive hit, and yet I feel like I'm going against the grain by actually liking it."

You and me both.

"In regards to the rest of your response: I pretty much agree with you...but, c'mon, man. Is a nameless commenter, who's most likely thirteen years old, calling a movie critic a "fag" really a soul-shattering experience?

It's not the individual remarks that are bothersome but the mentality behind the whole of it. It's not, "I disagree" or even "You're an idiot" but "How dare you disagree when everyone else agrees?" Yes, it's ultimately just a troll thing -- people who read and engage with critics regularly and aren't just leaving virtual graffiti aren't likely to join in that sort of response anyway. But it's still mob craziness with training wheels.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-08-02 01:13:00 That was a great ad for Obama. All those people cheering, that great smile ... did I miss something?
Posted by Wrongshore on 2008-08-02 00:27:00 #1 - If Tony Soprano saw this, I can't help but think he'd at least be thinking of a way (ie, cracking some skulls) to make sure that his precious paper made it's way intact to his driveway every morning.

#2 - The NYTimes Magazine piece today on Trolls seems at least somewhat informative on this phenomenon, even if it's a tad late to the subject.
Posted by drake leLane on 2008-08-01 22:27:00 "Your statement presupposes that the writers and commenters at this site don't enjoy comic books, comic book movies or populist genre pictures,"

I presupposed that? Really? If I did, sorry, I didn't mean to.

"It also presupposes that people who generally don't like those sorts of movies need a ritualized circle jerk to convince themselves they're underdogs in this film culture.Point of fact, they are underdogs. The box office returns prove that."

The box office returns prove nothing except that a lot of people went to see a certain movie... Indiana Jones 4 was a massive hit, and yet I feel like I'm going against the grain by actually liking it.

In regards to the rest of your response: I pretty much agree with you...but, c'mon, man. Is a nameless commenter, who's most likely thirteen years old, calling a movie critic a "fag" really a soul-shattering experience?

If critics are going to trash other people, sometimes they're going to get trashed themselves...If you're going to declare yourself an authority on a subject, you should be strong enough to withstand that kind of idiotic, fumbling, frontal assault.

My interest in film criticism is casual at best; I like to check up on reviews once or twice a year. But, I've had enough of these self-righteous think pieces lamenting the critic's lot in life.
Posted by z on 2008-08-01 22:15:00 "Obviously, you're a fan of comics and graphic novels. Fine. My comments were about TDK. You spent your entire piece trying to stand up for comics and debunking one sentence out of many rather than to take on the specific criticisms against the movie. Which, as I see it, are legitimate."

I wrote a lengthy piece on my problems with the film (ambitious failure, tried to do some correct things in incorrect ways, etc) for my own site, and have spoken on the film in previous comment threads here and elsewhere - I'm more or less done talking about the film.

I just had an issue with your terminology - which may seem pedantic, but I rather consider it a base-level "Can we agree on THIS at least, before anyone moves forward?" Some name calling is intentional and some isn't, and I'd rather do without either.
Posted by Michael Peterson on 2008-08-01 20:12:00 MP-

Yes, by "comic form" I was referring to the Super Hero form.

Obviously, you're a fan of comics and graphic novels. Fine. My comments were about TDK. You spent your entire piece trying to stand up for comics and debunking one sentence out of many rather than to take on the specific criticisms against the movie. Which, as I see it, are legitimate.

Furthermore, calling the culture lazy is perfectly attributable -- because it is. Just look at what's most popular. The three biggest movies this summer will be the third sequel to a 1980s action series, the screen version of a 45-year-old comic character, and the 6th entry (1960s excluded) of a movie series based on a 70-year-old comic.

PS- No need to apologize for being vehement. Your comments were calm and level-headed.
Posted by Anonymous on 2008-08-01 20:00:00 Z: Your statement presupposes that the writers and commenters at this site don't enjoy comic books, comic book movies or populist genre pictures, when in fact we do (everybody here has gotten flak from somebody for defending a comic book movie that somebody else didn't like -- for me, it's "Superman Returns" and "Road to Perdition").

It also presupposes that people who generally don't like those sorts of movies need a ritualized circle jerk to convince themselves they're underdogs in this film culture. Point of fact, they are underdogs. The box office returns prove that. I don't agree with the mentality of a person who would dismiss an entire genre out-of-hand, but such viewers do appear to be in the minority, based on the sorts of films Hollywood puts out during the summer and that immense numbers of people routinely buy tickets to see. They aren't fantasizing that theirs is a minority position; it actually is one.

As for the "waah-waah" accusation, go through the comments thread of Keith's "Dark Knight" review on this site and Rotten Tomatoes. There's some incredibly hostile, illiterate, illogical sentiment being expressed there, an anger far out of proportion to the purported crime. And a fair number of the comments were homophobic or tacitly or explicitly threatened the writer with violence. (This happened in the comments threads of many mixed or negative reviews -- let's say it again just so we're living in reality -- a category for which there are very, very few examples. The vast majority of critics liked, even loved the film. One person in the comments thread of David Fear's mixed but affectionate review in Time Out signed himself in as, "David Fear sucks dick.")

Added to which, this was not a case where fans were standing up for a widely maligned film that wasn't doing well at the box office. They were concentrating their vitriol on a handful -- a handful! -- of critics who dared express anything but slavish worship for the movie itself, the genre that produced it, and the excitement surrounding it. It wasn't impassioned discourse. It was a demand for unanimity of opinion, for intellectual obedience, an anti-democratic reaction better suited to a theocracy: How dare you criticize God. It was mob hysteria, pure and simple -- and cowardly, too, as there's no way the vast majority of such people would express themselves in that manner face-to-face, in public. They'd get a drink the face or worse, and they know it.

This is the downside of the Internet: it frees people of the responsibility of having to make forceful, articulate arguments and stand by their words. I welcome duels on the Internet, but too much of what I see is the verbal equivalent of drive-by shootings.

My problem with the fan reaction was not the mere fact of its existence, but the fact that too many of the responders conducted themselves without intelligence, decency or honor.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-08-01 19:42:00 "...ritualized bullshit designed to circle-jerk the like-minded into feeling like perpetual underdogs..."

That could easily describe every essay I've read bemoaning the idea that large groups of people enjoy The Dark Knight.

In regards to the fan response (you'll have to imagine this in an Artie Lange voice): "Wahhh! I wrote a review and people strongly disagreed with me! Waaaaaah!"

If you dish it out, at some point you're going to have to take it. Is a comic book fan calling you a "fucking idiot" really THAT much different than all the snotty quips featured in most of your reviews? It's just more blunt.

Enough with all this smug martyrdom
Posted by Z on 2008-08-01 19:19:00 GCCR: "My problem with the CBS piece was that it makes it seem that McCain's tactics are the first example of 'going negative.'"

Yeah, that was absurdity #1 among many in that short piece.

Above and beyond that, I'm pretty tired of the press, and representatives of both political parties, complaining that one candidate or another is "going negative" or running a "smear campaign." Yes, I'd prefer that politicians stick to substantive issues during a campaign, but they almost never do, and the candidate that tries to take some semblance of the high road tends to get his ass kicked. For better or worse, it seems to me that elections are often won by whichever side seems to want it more, and who will stop at nothing to win, and who hit upon a plan to push the buttons of voters whose support they need.

The mudslinging and taunting and childish bullshit that occurs during elections is, in a strange way, an indispensable part of the process -- a way of seeing how a candidate responds when something unexpected and unfair and destructive comes his way. Whether the object of attack responds in a classy way that neutralizes the aggression and makes the aggressor look silly, or responds in kind and shows himself to be tougher and meaner than the aggressor, or simply wilts under pressure and can't figure out what to do, the voter learns something. The process is not ennobled, but the voter learns something.

I learned a lot about George Bush and John Kerry, and the Republicans and Democrats, in the 2004 election. The Swift Boat strategy -- which was designed to attack Kerry's chief strength (his genuine, decorated war hero status) and make him look like a pussy compared to a sitting president who escaped Vietnam combat in the Air National Guard and was no Top Gun there, either -- was so audacious and surprising, so incredibly nervy and bizarre, that I couldn't help but admire it. And the Kerry team's non-response, its reluctance to go in there and hit Bush in his soft spots (he ran from 'Nam and has a draft-dodger VP, yet strutted around taunting terrorists as if he's in a bad 1980s action film, proving himself insensitive to the very soldiers' sacrifices he preened about appreciating) made Kerry look as weak and indecisive as Bush supporters claimed he was.

An altogether deeply depressing experience, but quite instructive.

The McCain ad is a lame, muddled attempt to apply the Karl Rove strategy to Obama -- when you've got nothing, accuse your opponent of being a fairy, a sissy-man, not like the other guy, who's so butch. (That's why the ad invokes Paris Hilton and Britney Spears rather than, say, George Clooney or Sean Penn.) It's primordial politics that makes anyone who embraces it look like an ape, but damned if it hasn't worked time and time again for the Republicans. (Right-wing talk radio's favorite nickname for John Edwards, "Breck Girl," being another case in point.)

As Sean Connery tells Kevin Costner in "The Untouchables," when somebody pulls a knife, you pull a gun. That's the Chicago way.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-08-01 19:18:00 I caught the McCain ad with the sound off, which led me to conclude, â€œWow, McCainâ€™s really desperate to connect with younger voters if heâ€™s trotting out endorsements from Paris and Britney!â€ For better or worse, itâ€™s McCain (!) who now will be associated with the sexed-up blondes (itâ€™s his ad after all). Which is also kind of creepy. What media whiz thought that one up?
Posted by Lauren Wissot on 2008-08-01 19:15:00 Re: Newspapers. I just re-upped this morning for a year of The Washington Post. We get the Washington Times as well -- gotta have a Jon Voight editorial every now and then. I grew up with both, read them both every day, and consider myself much more informed for it.
Posted by Discman on 2008-08-01 19:00:00 ...That was probably more vehement than was necessary.
Posted by Michael Peterson on 2008-08-01 18:57:00 Dear "Anonymous" - with due respect to your opinions regarding the film specifically and the genre more generally, I'd like to speak on behalf of those who take the medium of sequential art seriously and ask you politely to not use "comic book" as a derogatory term.

I'm not sure what you mean by "The screenplay, in typical comic form, made no logical sense." Are you referring to the metafictional elements used by independent creators like Art Spiegelman in the second volume of his Pulitzer-winning "Maus?" The way he played with the cartoon conceit there was a little mind-bending. Or did you mean the surrealist imagery in place of solid plot from a creator like Jim Woodring? There's a real throughline in Woodring's work to animated features, but not so much live action ones, at least not in "Frank." Or were you referring to Manga? Admittedly some shonen material plays loose with believability, but--

Oh. Oh, you meant SUPERHERO comics. I see.

So "silly comic book movie" does not specifically imply films like "A History of Violence," "Ghost World," "American Splendor," "Road to Perdition," "Art School Confidential," "Wristcutters: A Love Story," "Persepolis," or "From Hell" - films of wildly varying quality and relevance, to be sure, but nothing like what you're clearly referring to.

This may seem a little unnecessarily abrasive - but using that term is lazy criticism, lazier even, perhaps, than calling "the culture" clueless, as you do further down - it's lazy first and foremost because as a dismissive it doesn't actually mean anything.

The number of people working in the comic art form, be they writers, artists, or other, who are consistently demeaned by throwaway comments like these in reference to other media... it riles me up. Comics themselves rarely have to be defended these days. They're hip, kids and adults alike are reading them, there's more available for a general audience than ever - don't use "us" when you can't find something incisive to say about a film or a novel.

The reactions on this site and elsewhere to TDK have made it difficult to champion the comic industry and its fan culture, but I've no problem reasserting the value of the comic medium.
Posted by Michael Peterson on 2008-08-01 18:43:00 I finally saw TDK last night.

And truth be told, I'm as oblivious to its praise and success as I was to Titanic's a decade ago. Neither is a particularly good movie. Their success is/was based on that intangible from hell: The Zeitgeist. Both movies offered something that just clicked with the public at that moment.

It wasn't even that TDK was flawed. It was a legitimately poorly constructed film. The screenplay, in typical comic form, made no logical sense. Pure Swiss Cheese. Every scene was a cut to the chase without anything to justify how characters and events moved ahead as quickly or as smoothly as they did. Situations just suddenly existed from nowhere, defying physics and general credibility. Furthermore, Nolan proved he's no Altman or Mann in his ability to manage and intercut various plotlines. It was a complete jumble. Not to mention that every single development felt completely predictable.

Batman, himself, even looked ridiculous in his cheeseball rubber mask and husky voice. There's a reason why Burton and Schumacher created stylized environments and atmosphere for their films. But here, with Nolan's insistence on "reality", all it does is point out how utterly ridiculous everything is: It's a guy running around in a rubber suit with a cape and pointed ears!

One last thing. The use of all the "terrorist" imagery. It never ceases to amaze me how clueless the culture is. It really is about timing not quality. Remember how much shit Spielberg got 3 years ago for using that kind of imagery in a "summer movie"? Yet it's now okay for that same imagery to exist in a silly comic book movie? Grow up. "War of the Worlds" did it first and did it better.

Oh, and give Ledger the Oscar. He deserves it.
Posted by Anonymous on 2008-08-01 16:49:00 RE: McCain Ad...

Hey Matt,

Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you :)

Anyways, I'm a McCain supporter and I agree that the ad was silly and could have made its point WITHOUT using the images of Hilton or Spears. Overall, I give McCain a C- so far as a candidate (Exhibit A: his press conference in front of the cheese aisle while Obama was overseas). Team McCain is clearly stuggling with how to communicate his "message" and failing miserably.

My problem with the CBS piece was that it makes it seem that McCain's tactics are the first example of "going negative." During the Democratic primaries, Obama was hammering McCain about his 100 years remark (which, agree or disagree with the sentiment, was taken WAYYY out of context) AND linking him to Bush policies (which anyone who's paid attention to the Bush/McCain relationship for the last 8 years knows is bullshit).
Posted by GCCR on 2008-08-01 16:35:00 #2: Recalling fan dogpiling on dissenters of movies past, I'm struck by how the reaction is often reflective of the tone of each film. Titanic worshippers had orgasms over every weekend's "unsinkable" box office and showed hubris and contempt toward anyone who dared question the Epic Saga (reflected by Cameron's own public rebuttal to Kenneth Turan). Impassioned devotees of The Sixth Sense came on in an evangelical, why-don't-you-have-faith kind of way toward folks who had the temerity to dislike that film. Overzealous fans of The Dark Knight, as we have seen, have a violent tinge to their attacks, a thirst for some vague kind of justice. I liked the movie, with some serious reservations, but I have to wonder how well a movie is going to hold up if it's so vulnerable to a handful of negative reviews. Gotta admit, I'm having doubts.
Posted by Craig on 2008-08-01 16:25:00 #2. Seriously? Talking about talking about TDK, still? Is it just me, or has every blogger said 'somebody should write an aesthetic defense of this movie,' and yet no one has? Please link me to one. If it doesn't exist, I will write one.
Posted by Philip on 2008-08-01 14:53:00 I'm an Obama supporter. I think the McCain ad is just kind of weird -- like an attempt to do some kind of media jiu-jitsu and turn one of Obama's biggest pluses (his charisma, and the excitement surrounding the idea of Obama) into a negative (implying he's shallow and only cares about the spotlight). The problem with the ad is that it insults any possible swing voter that might have positive feelings toward both Obama and McCain by essentially saying, "Obama is a superficial twit, and if you like him, you're one, too."

That CBS News story, on the other hand, is incredibly biased toward Obama in its editing, its choice of quotes and even the language of its copy. I think a lot of conservative complaining about the liberal media is ritualized bullshit designed to circle-jerk the like-minded into feeling like perpetual underdogs despite right wing domination of U.S. government throughout this decade. But stories like this one -- as shabby and transparently loaded as the purported crudeness it aims to call out -- prove that even paranoids have real enemies.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-08-01 06:17:00 RE Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdYtWiT1pJo
Posted by Jake Savage on 2008-08-01 06:05:00 #1. This is terrible news, not just for the paper's employees, but for the state of New Jersey, which is losing its most diligent and aggressive watchdog.

There seems to be widespread agreement that the institution of the daily newspaper is going the way of the dodo, and there isn't much (if anything) that can be done to stop it. But for at least a century and a half, daily newspapers have traditionally been the only general-interest source of reported news; the mere physical fact of seeing newspapers in boxes and on newsstands and in the hands of readers could prompt at least a casual interest in news that immediately affected people in the newspaper's circulation area. I fear that with this institution disappearing, the practice and profession of reporting news (as opposed to merely commenting on it, the Internet's stock-in-trade) will dwindle to damn near zilch. And our institutions and corporations will have even less accountability than they had during the age of newspapers.

I hope I'm wrong about that. And I hope that something akin to the general-interest local/regional newspaper will find a way to survive on the Internet, regularly reporting news that impacts people's daily lives. If there's a business model that can make such a thing happen, I hope somebody somewhere is working on implementing it -- not just for the good of soon-to-be-unemployed newspaper employees, the most talented of whom are sure to find other meaningful employment, but for the common good.
Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-08-01 05:10:00