Adios, Newsweek!

Another of the journalistic dinosaurs is fading into oblivion this week, and really it should have happened some time ago. See ya, Newsweek! You had nothing unique to offer anymore, and failed to evolve. From former Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker, via CNN:

For decades, the cover was also how the fierce competition between Newsweek and Time was defined. In the 1960s, Newsweek became a "hot book" after three decades as a distant also-ran, thanks largely to its forward-looking covers on civil rights, Vietnam and the women's movement (not to mention Twiggy and LSD). In the 1970s, it was the cleverness of its cover designs as well as the depth of its reporting that wowed everyone who followed Newsweek's coverage of Watergate.

When both magazines put a young Bruce Springsteen on the cover in the same week in 1975, it became conventional wisdom that we tried to copy each other. But the opposite was true: We were always looking to win the cover war, and we exulted when we did.

Images are so easy to come by online now, so original content matters more than ever. There was a fat clue in the quote above, about having a particular take on the news so as to make your publication stand out. Mother Jones and Reason carry on. Nobody buys those mags for the covers. Newsweek? Into the ash bin.

More and more old media is dying off, failing to evolve, refusing to understand what makes people want to pay for their content- or if people want to pay to view their content. Those that get it will survive and thrive, because there is no shortage of demand for news and opinion that is unique.

One Of My Pet Peeves About Libertarians

I found an article today regarding TV viewing and Spongebob Squarepants. I'll use the Fox News article, just because that stirs certain puddin' besides:

CHICAGO – The cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants is in hot water from a study suggesting that watching just nine minutes of that program can cause short-term attention and learning problems in 4-year-olds.

The problems were seen in a study of 60 children randomly assigned to either watch "SpongeBob," or the slower-paced PBS cartoon "Caillou" or assigned to draw pictures

Immediately after these nine-minute assignments, the kids took mental function tests; those who had watched "SpongeBob" did measurably worse than the others.

I wasn't exactly surprised by this. I've observed my own kids watch TV with eyes locked onto the screen in trance. My eldest has ADHD, and my personal, non-scientific belief is that TV had something to do with it. Also, the little I've watched of Spongebob left me feeling imminently dumber for the exercise. I find the show nearly as unfunny as Mr. Bean. Stupid-as-charming.

My house is one without a TV. No cable. Yes, we watch things via internet or DVD players, most days a few You Tube clips or a half hour here or there. Or an episode of Kojak. The kids nominally get an hour a day, but rarely are really allowed to watch their allocation. It's extremely low priority stuff here. Play outside with friends? Drawing? Hours and hours, kiddies!

That's by choice. No government nanny has restricted the viewing. I have, together with my wife. We value quite a lot above TV viewing.

Nobody in any of the articles I read was calling for a ban of Spongebob Squarepants, or any similarly fast-paced cartoon. That didn't stop Reason Magazine from blowing gaskets.

Jacob Sullum's freak out, complete with headline, "Who Will Protect Children From Dangerously Exciting Cartoons?":

In what sense does this study "bolster the idea that media exposure is a public health issue"? Watching SpongeBob did not harm the subjects' health. Even if it did, why would that be a public health issue, as opposed to a private health issue? The former label implies a rationale for government intervention, perhaps through regulations aimed at ensuring that TV shows watched by children are not too fun or exciting. Calling exposure to SpongeBob a "public health issue" is just a pseudoscientific, quasi-medical way of saying, "I do not trust people to raise their children the way I think they should."

Nick Gillespie's freak out, complete with headline, "Headline Grabbing Study Of The Week: For Kids To Learn, Spongebob Must Die!"

A new earth-shattering and metaphysically incontrovertible study is out, this one saying that watching SpongeBob SquarePants can cause learning problems in little kids. How bad is it? According to a USA Today writeup, "just nine minutes of that program can cause short-term attention and learning problems in 4-year-olds."
...
Wake up, America!: The more we focus on whether SpongeBob will make teh kidz dumb, the less we will focus on him making them gayz.

This is absurd. It's just a study. It may be predictable that someone will soon call for a ban on cartoons, or restrictive ratings, or some such... but at least wait for that to happen before wailing and gnashing teeth. "Implies a rationale for government intervention"? Sorry, I didn't see that in there. A little jumpy? A study, even a weak one, allows parents to- get this- use some reason and come to whatever conclusions they may. I needed little encouragement to keep my little ones away from Spongebob anyway. Other parents will let theirs watch. I'm not going to start looking for the phone number for Protective Services,.

It's such a pet peeve. There are a million things that are actual law that are worth fighting against. You start railing against studies, and it isn't long until you are dismissed out of hand as anti-science.

Yes, Gillespie & Sullum noted the weak nature of the study. Perfect! Do that in measured tones, and people will take it seriously. Go overboard with the hyperbolic headlines, and the response seems as goofy as the show in question.

And please, before anyone assails me as a TV prude without a sense of humor, understand that everything Monty Python is at the top of my list. It's perfectly great viewing for the right ages & maturity levels, far enough away from the screen, and in blocs of time that leave time to have breakfast before the sun sets.

Reason Saves Cleveland

As one who grew up and lived in Cleveland for some 34 years, I will be very interested to see the results of Drew Carey's project with the Reason Foundation, called 'Reason Saves Cleveland'.

My opinion of Cleveland was that it was a city that had an iron grip clutching to the past that left- the days of exceptionally high-paying jobs that required workers to show up and bring a marginal skill set with them. Virtually all public policy I ever reviewed could predictably lead to brain and wealth drain. Truly, you have to be a fool to live in the City of Cleveland, in my opinion.

I will follow with interest. Alas, my opinion of the City is that it is rather the logical conclusion of the old adage, "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink". In Cleveland's case, "You can hold the horse's head under water, and it wouldn't drink to save it's life. The only water it will take in will drown it."

Let Me Be Clear: His Lips Are Moving!

Reason's Jacob Sullum really hits one out of the park on Obama's rhetorical BS. I especially am sick of the phrase, "Let me be clear". I really like how Sullum addresses it:

From now on, when you hear Obama speak, try replacing “let me be clear” with “let me lie to you,” and see if it makes more sense.

That makes perfect sense to me. Whenever I listen to Obama's speeches, I find that he's trying to disarm opposition as the first order of business. I understand the need to win the argument in order to carry the day, but I never feel he has it quite right. Maybe that's by design.

Obama’s depiction of his critics is a bit further removed from reality. In the health care debate, he says, “there are those who simply don't believe Washington can bring about this change”; “there are those who will say that we do not go far enough”; “there are those who would have us try what has already failed, who would defend the status quo”; “there are those who will oppose reform no matter what”; and “there are those who want to seek political advantage.”

What about those who do not like the status quo but have a different vision of reform, not because they want to go farther than Obama does but because they want to go in a different direction, toward more choice, more competition, and less government involvement? In Obama’s world, they do not exist; instead we have his bold yet achievable plan, pitted against socialist utopianism and blind partisan intransigence. Let me be clear: This is a false choice.

The formula is exposed. A truly brilliant analytical article. Required reading. Send the linkage far and wide.