|
In case
no one's noticed, the New
York Times has had a bit of a credibility
problem lately. Of course, if you ask me, any rag with
the hubris to call itself "the newspaper of record" is
virtually asking for a Jayson Blair to come along and make it look
foolish. I don't care what they teach you in Columbia's Journalism
school: Objectivity and impartial reporting are a myth at worst,
a lame marketing strategy at best. Hell, even Fox
News claims it's "Objective Reporting, Fair and
Balanced!" Anyone who writes, writes fiction: It's just a question
of how much of a fantasist they are.
Of course,
the Times pisses me off for much more
visceral reasons: On page one of the Metro section, they'll
be a story on some ghetto tragedy that concludes with how awful
conditions are for the working classes, while the unintentionally
racist op-eds will cry how we have educate the poor black folks
into middle-class respectability and the Style section fetishizes
hip-hop culture. Sundays, the magazine will run some bullshit profile
of the young, cool artist-or-author-of-the-moment—who more
than likely benefits from an Ivy league education and family connections—opposite
ads for haute couture that real struggling artists and writers can
never afford. There's something terribly ironic about the whole
production, sort of like a production of La Boheme where
even the cheap tickets go for prices that real bohemians can never
afford. Once the Times runs a story on you, you know you've
made it, for good or for ill: The Times is the engine that
drives the media machine, repackaging anything new and good and
original into a pablum to sate middle-aged, middle-class suburbanites'
need to be the vicarious spectators of real culture.
Why is
the Times' failing a big deal? Well, for those who have been
living in a cave, or maybe Yorkshire, for the past century or so,
the Times is the source from which most, if not all, the
college-educated, middle-to-upper class intellectuals in the American
Northeast take their lead. (I use the term "intellectual"
in the loose sense of "someone who pretends they don't read
the sports section first.") "The
New York Times is the most important and influential newspaper
in America, and thus essentially sets the social and political agenda
for much of the country," as Sydney H. Schanberg eloquently
put it in June 11's Village Voice. "All the
elites—political, business, academic—read the Times
religiously. Though the polls tell us that average Americans get
their news mostly from television, the rarely spoken fact is that
the television networks—and many other major media companies—go
through the Times as their first act every day in order to
plan their own news reports."
Schanberg
continued:
"In
effect, the Times explains the establishment to the establishment.
Were the Times to lose its balance, it could cause tremors
at other core institutions. A healthy and credible and competitive
press is crucial to the functioning of a democracy—and to
keeping it a democracy. Whether or not it's your favorite paper,
whether or not it succumbs at times to hubris and arrogance (I
think it does), the Times is the flagship of that independent
American press."
Thankfully,
I've found a news source far better than the Times: Fark.com.
Fark
has utter credibility. Instead of believing the world revolves around
the island of Manhattan, Fark runs news from all over. A beer spill
on a Kentucky highway merits just as much mention as Michael Bloomberg's
smoking ban. Likewise, random lunatics with Web sites (such as me)
get headlines written the same size font as does President Bush's
latest proclamation attempt to use our Social Security money to
gift some third-world country with land mines. In fact, Fark is
so fair and balanced that Drew is constantly being simultaneously
accused of being a tree-hugging pinko commie by conservatives, and
a neo-Nazi right-wing Christian thug by tree-hugging pinko commies.
In actuality, though, Fark does something far better than taking
sides: It lets people hang themselves with their own words and deeds.
Not only
that, unlike the Times, which might deem to print your letter
if the stars align correctly and you sacrifice a goat to the publisher,
Fark is infinitely more democratic. The Web, after all, was never
intended for one-way communications. The Fark forums allows the
public to talk back and make their opinions heard instantly—rather
than an elite of editorial philosopher-kings deciding what the "proper"
perspective is.
Furthermore,
believe it or not, the Times is not the only place where
the "independent American press" gets its news. Fark is
read by media professionals—especially Web, TV, and radio professionals,
who need to know what the next
meme is in a flash. What's posted to Fark on Tuesday
is our national culture on Wednesday. And, unlike, say, the Times'
focus on "shit that only applies to New York City," Fark
better reflects a wide variety of tastes and opinions. Perfect example:
A couple of weeks ago, the Times ran
an article on chain restaurants such as TGI Friday's,
the Olive Garden, and Applebee's opening in Manhattan, and how young
urban hipsters like to visit these cheesy temples of deep-fried
cheese out of nostalgia-cum-irony. The next day, they were back
to calling $25 appetizers "reasonable." Well, guess what?!
In most of strip-mall suburbia America, TGI Friday's is
What's For Dinner.
But finally,
and perhaps most importantly, instead of bullshit highmindedness,
Fark is openly in favor of the two things that make this country
great: boobies and beer.
And,
after all, who wants to see the "Gray Lady"'s boobies?!
Become
the Media. Write to editor@corporatemofo.com
|
|
|
