Somebody, plz, tell me what the f she means.....

Really fine work, Frank.

 

A lolkindred. Loving it.

 

I actually know this chick and am very familiar with her M.O. The reason she didn't delve into the "how" is because she fancies herself a "multimedia consultant on the Millennial Generation" ... meaning if you were intrigued by her self-serving drivel above, you can hire her to save your newspaper.

 

Newspaper editors are great at throwing out buzzwords that mean absolutely nothing. (Some day soon, a corporate type will come up with "superhyperlocal." As a result, he or she will be labeled a genius and we'll all have to attend seminars to learn that "superhyperlocal" means ... covering our communities and writing shorter stories.)

Just once I'd like for a person to write a "save-the-industry" column that is short on lecture and long on specifics. As it is, it makes me wonder if these people really know because I always go into them thinking, "Ok, what's your solution? What do we need to do?" And halfway through, I realize the writer has nothing useful to offer.

 

One of the best posts I have read on these boards.

 

Frank is both a scholar and a gentleman.

 

OK, so nobody knows WTF she's talking about....I've learned from considerable painful experience that when I write something nobody understands, it's because I was the stupid one, not the readers.
So let's leave Meagan to stew in her self-serving juices.
I'll move on to Frank's constipated-bureaucrat theory. I disagree, not with the constipation, because I, too, have seen an editor's face at the moment he realizes he has no effin' clue. My disagreement is with the idea it's the poor suffering fool's fault. It's the system's fault.
Do anything every day, it gets dull. Ice cream, bourbon, Charlize. (OK, 2 out of 3.) My theory is the only dull people can put up with dull days forever. The bright ones cull themselves out. Hemingway said newspapers are good for writers if they escape in time. The challenge for newspapers, forever, has been to keep brilliant people interested and fresh. The system works against that by demanding its ounce of flesh daily, or even hourly now. But the system, as currently constructed, is necessary to get the damned paper out every night.
What I'm hoping is that we're in the early days of a real revolution in the system that will make it possible to hook brilliant young people and give them the resources, tools, and freedom necessary to be the journalists they dream of being. That would be fun.

 

I believe the thread starter has confused "We get what she thinks she's saying, but she's not saying it very well, and/or I don't agree with much of it" with "OK, nobody knows WTF she's talking about." Based on the original post and its little notes about one's teh and hair hurting, I'm not sure the thread starter was ever truly interested in a thorough analysis of what she wrote.

It's much easier to simply act dismissively towards young Maegan and move on to discussion about other topics, even though little can be added to Frank's excellent post.

The problem with the idea of a "revolution" is that the industry must undergo way too many changes for such a thing to happen. People like Maegan believe that the ideas they espouse ARE that revolution. But as her column and the reaction to it her indicate, not everyone can agree on what those revolutionary ideas should be. And frustration at this drives many journalists - young and old - to other professions, where new ideas are embraced, and gee, the pay is much better too.

 

1. The thread starter is Dave Kindred. His name is right there.

2. Is Maegan really young?

3. It's perfectly appropriate to act dismissively toward a piece that is written with so many buzzwords, catch-phrases and new web geegaws as to be unintelligible to people who write for a living.

4. If young Maegan offered any brilliant new insights to save the industry, please translate them to English for us.

 

First, Carberry never presented her column as a "save the industry" idea. She was talking about ways to reach younger readers that she feels are better than the approaches that newspaper have usually taken. Her idea seems to be that it's a fallacy to try to lure in young readers by one or two editorial changes, and that newspapers need to change the way they deliver their content if they want to reach young readers, and that journalists, young and old, need to be quicker to adapt to new tools and technologies that are changing the way people consume news, particularly young people.

As for her age, from the first comment on this link:
http://www.visualeditors.com/apple/2008/04/friday-visual-journalism-roundup/

it looks like she finished grad school four years ago, so she's probably in her mid 20s?

As for the complaint about the buzzwords, I read the entire column, and the only buzzwords I saw were a couple in the one sentence near the end that starts "It’s the building of multi-media communities ..." I really had no problem interpreting what she was saying in most of her column, though the column does meander a bit. That one sentence was a bit painful to read, but the column doesn't come close to being unintelligible. There weren't really any "Web geegaws" that a journalist today shouldn't have at least a passing familiarity with.

As much as her apparent attitude toward the "old" element at newspapers disturbs many here (myself included), it also disturbs me to see the dismissive attitude that's flowing in the other direction. I think that sort of self-important arrogance from both young and old toward each other divides newsrooms, frustrates young journalists, infuriates veterans, and keeps them from actually learning from each other. Too often, instead of trying to identify valuable insights that the other has to offer, they instead paint the other camp with a broad, stereotypical brush (the outdated ideas of the "dinosaur" vs. the "technobabble" of some ignorant youngster) and refuse to try to speak to each other in their language, to see things from their perspective, and to understand why they feel their particular ideas are the way to go.

 

So what valuable insights am I missing?

 

The third time I've posted this on the thread: Her idea seems to be that it's a fallacy to try to lure in young readers by one or two editorial changes, and that newspapers need to change the way they deliver their content if they want to reach young readers, and that journalists, young and old, need to be quicker to adapt to new tools and technologies that are changing the way people consume news, particularly young people.