CJR on a study on the relationship between journalism and drinking

[SF_Express]

Mildly interesting, nothing particularly shocking. Might be something people want to talk about.

http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/charting_the_connection_betwee.php

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

When and where I began my career, it was common for the staff to head en masse to a bar. And then I moved to an excellent paper in a different part of the country where we didn't do this, but we still had that hellbent, "go for it" attitude. So I don't think this vitality-sapping corporate atmosphere has anything to do with absence of drunks. I think it has to do with self-propagating promotion of ass-sucking phonies into positions of newsroom power by desperate publishers who are easy prey for corporatespeak charlatans who promise a quick fix. The ass-sucking phonies then hire or promote other ass-sucking phonies who will replace the original ass-suckers when they move on to Poynter and the like, and the succession is repeated. These ass-suckers do not tend to tolerate dissent, which kills off any newsroom spirit. We have met the enemy and he is us, or at least a few cubicles away. Blaming it on us not drinking together is much is safer than addressing the fact that many of our leaders have no soul and would not acquire one from a bottle.

 

[SF_Express]

When and where I began my career, it was common for the staff to head en masse to a bar. And then I moved to an excellent paper in a different part of the country where we didn't do this, but we still had that hellbent, "go for it" attitude. So I don't think this vitality-sapping corporate atmosphere has anything with absence of drunks. I think it has to do with self-propagating promotion of ass-sucking phonies into positions of newsroom power by desperate publishers who are easy prey for corporatespeak charlatans who promise a quick fix. The ass-sucking phonies then hire or promote other ass-sucking phonies who will replace the original ass-suckers when they move on to Poynter and the like, and the succession is repeated. These ass-suckers do not tend to tolerate dissent, which kills off any newsroom spirit. We have met the enemy and he is us, or at least a few cubicles away. Blaming it on us not drinking together as much is safer than addressing the fact that many of our leaders have no soul and would not acquire one from a bottle.

Wow, what a great post.

 

[MileHigh]

I'll echo that.

 

[shockey]

that was beautiful, frank. ;D

 

[joe_schmoe]

I wonder if Frank's post reads differently when I'm drunk?

 

[SF_Express]

Actually, one thing, Frank, because I've noted seeing this here before. And I'm allowed to hijack my own thread.

When I go to Poynter, I see a lot of positive things. Yeah, there's all the management-speak, but that's been going on from my early days in the business (maybe my start coincided with our descent into a dark hole).

There's a lot of vitriol among those here concerning Poynter. Do we think they do more harm than good?

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Do we think they do more harm than good?

No, I am glad they are there because they add to the discussion. And I respect what Nelson Poynter did -- the title of his bio, "A Sacred Trust," says it all. However, they are like commentators who write one thing one day, write the opposite a week later and never acknowledge this change. There is too much smugness about having "the answer" -- remember a year ago, how we're all gonna go tabloid? -- and then no accountability when the panacea du jour is found wanting. It's like, "civic journalism will save us" and then when it doesn't, no explanation of why it didn't, just on to the next fad. We need to learn from our mistakes, not treat it like necktie widths and keep bouncing back and forth between 3 inches wide and 4 inches wide for no reason but fashion. So I'd like to see a section of poynter.org called How We ****ed Up And Why.

 

[SF_Express]

No, I am glad they are there because they add to the discussion. And I respect what Nelson Poynter did -- the title of his bio, "A Sacred Trust," says it all. However, they are like commentators who write one thing one day, write the opposite a week later and never acknowledge this change. There is too much smugness about having "the answer" -- remember a year ago, how we're all gonna go tabloid? -- and then no accountability when the panacea du jour is found wanting. It's like, "civic journalism will save us" and then when it doesn't, no explanation of why it didn't, just on to the next fad. We need to learn from our mistakes, not treat it like necktie widths and keep bouncing back and forth between 3 inches wide and 4 inches wide for no reason but fashion. So I'd like to see a section of poynter.org called How We ****ed Up And Why.

You know, that's what I hate about you, you never offer an informed, well-constructed opinion.

 

[Dave Kindred]

No, I am glad they are there because they add to the discussion. And I respect what Nelson Poynter did -- the title of his bio, "A Sacred Trust," says it all. However, they are like commentators who write one thing one day, write the opposite a week later and never acknowledge this change. There is too much smugness about having "the answer" -- remember a year ago, how we're all gonna go tabloid? -- and then no accountability when the panacea du jour is found wanting. It's like, "civic journalism will save us" and then when it doesn't, no explanation of why it didn't, just on to the next fad. We need to learn from our mistakes, not treat it like necktie widths and keep bouncing back and forth between 3 inches wide and 4 inches wide for no reason but fashion. So I'd like to see a section of poynter.org called How We ****ed Up And Why.

You know, that's what I hate about you, you never offer an informed, well-constructed opinion.

My experience has been that Poynter facilitates discussion, doesn't dictate it. For one thing, it has no power to dictate. It can influence, yes, and the corporate phonies may learn PoynterSpeak. But, again, my experience has bee that Poynter discussions cover the pros and cons of the topic at hand. Reporters, editors, et al., are free to go home and make use of the information as best it fits their needs.

 

[SF_Express]

Yeah, Dave, but I think Frank's point is that when it comes to making our newsrooms all nice and proper and corporate, too many places listen.

 

[playthrough]

Ah, where's Dyepack when you need a good anti-Poynter rant...

 

[STLIrish]

There are probably lots of reasons why drinking and newsrooms don't mix like they used to. But how about one no one ever mentions: many of us now live and/or work in the suburbs. And suburbs means driving. And driving and drinking, alas, do not mix well.
My old shop was a rather hard-drinking joint in the outer burbs. How one gets home from a night at the bar after work was a constant worry, and definitely kept consumption under control. Still, two friends had DUIs and I knew a couple others who had near-miss experiences, and at least one who's a DUI waiting to happen. Hammill and Breslin worked at big-city papers with bars across the street and a subway to ride home. We, mostly, don't.

 

[amraeder]

There's a bar right across the street from us, well two actually (and a gun shop next door. Everything you could need in walking distance). We don't have the biggest drinking paper in the world, but us sports guys definitely do our part to keep the local establishments in business. My SE actually has a drink named after him at one of the bars, that's how big of a fixture he is there.

 

[txsportsscribe]

1st less-than-rag i worked at had a dive bar, chinese buffet and alcoholics anonymous meeting office in the same small strip.

 

[slappy4428]

My first job, I lived probably about 200 yards from work. In that stretch were two bars, a 3.2 beer/pizza joint, a restaurant with a bar and two bars in the four storefronts on the other side of the paper.

I bowed to beer pressure...