Note to Strib's "NewsBreak": Take a Cue from Jon Stewart
By Brian Lambert
By dawn Thursday Jon Stewart's take down of CNBC
for its bootlicking, fanzine style of "reporting" (i.e. cheerleading)
of international finance in the run up to the meltdown was already the
stuff legend, well on its way to pop culture immortality. And
deservedly so.
As cowed, timid and tragically incompetent as the institutional press was in the months leading up to George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq -- an episode of appalling group-think timidity in the face of fear-struck faux patriotism -- the performance of the so-called "financial press" in the years building to September's Wall Street collapse is even worse, with even more catastrophic consequences.
So, good one, dude.
Simultaneously I had been encouraged to check out the Star Tribune's freshly-launched (March 2) "NewsBreak," a very brief, daily, early afternoon round-up of news, some reported by Strib staffers. David Brauer pounced on it Day #1, and my pal Jim Leinfelder, who has done a lot of freelance work for the networks, offered his take of the premiere. (Dial down into the comments.) Being the fair-minded guy I am, I decided to give "NewsBreak" . . . mmmm four days . . . before ripping its gizzard out and feeding it to the crows.
The trouble is that I've expressed so much befuddlement over why the Strib (or, hell, the PiPress, if it had the budget for a camcorder) hasn't made a move to an "information company" (as opposed to a paper company) with all the video and audio and "personalities" that local TV news has sold us for so long, it seems both unfair and niggly to go after it when it finally commits to a semblance of the sort.
But, hell, I'm all about niggling unfairness.
Obviously, the Strib has been producing videos of one sort or another for a while now. What's new is the very WCCOKARE11KSTP-like "news desk" set with a cast of anchors, some of whom I've never before seen in clean shirts, much less suit jackets and ties, reading headlines and doing shtick with fellow reporters. What the . , , , ? My concept for good newspaper TV was a lot more guerrilla than this. It was antilocal news. A hand-held interview with, say, Paul McEnroe at his desk, offering an update on the Nasser Kazeminy case, or Chris Serres offering, you know, just a bit more on that Cargill piece he did a few weeks back, or, hell, even Neal Justin on what kind of perfume Lost star Evangeline Lilly was wearing January in LA would have been just fine. (The best would have been a daily segment with now-retired business writer/iconoclast Mike Meyers, an artesian font of candor and vivid denunciations.)
What am I saying? It would have been better.
The Leave It to Beaver theatrical formalities of local TV news is years past cheap parody. Even if you're winking at it, as James Lileks did on opening day, what's the point in aping it at all? Moreover, in addition the fact that when you take a bunch of writer wonks, dress them up in their prom clothes, and ask them to play Mike Pomeranz, you're risking the whole thing sounding like a high school production of Will Ferrell's Anchorman—everything the Internet is telling us about shifting tastes says the public much prefers honest informality to superficial authoritativeness.
And yes, yes, it's only a week into the bit. And yes, there's every reason to hope and expect the cast will relax and find their comfort zones. Lileks, an established pro at the radio/TV/online shtick, is clearly the one member of the gang most immediately ready for (mid-afternoon) prime time. Although Randy Salas has an offbeat attitude that I think can be groomed into something amusing, and my other old pal, movie critic Colin Covert--operating outside of the "NewsBreak" bit, but off the same desk--is his usual composed and polished self. (One star for Watchmen. Ouch.)
But, here's the deal: Since I don't want the superficiality of local TV news from my newspaper, why would anyone think I'd want it from my newspaper's TV show? What I want--and we're creeping back to Stewart's CNBC smackdown--is something I'm not getting via the silliness of TV news and the tight editorial hole of the print paper.
Oddly, the best example of this that I found on the Strib's menu of video selections was a self-taped chat between Twins beat writers Joe Christenson and LaVelle E. Neal from Ft. Meyers. Nothing slick about it. Two yobs talking into a camcorder. But if you're a fan, it's interesting to listen to the two discuss the day in camp. (There's plenty of the same on the Strib's Twins blogs, and LaVelle gets more airtime on KFAN than most hosts, but we're just talking in house production here.)
The fundamental issue is ambition. What does the Strib wants this to be? Local TV news-lite? (That would beg the question, how do you make cotton candy even lighter?) Or do you want to produce something that enhances your credibility and value to the news-consuming public?
Enter the Stewart model. His CNBC rip job is really just a step further than he goes almost every night with his clips of FoxNews/CNN/MSNBC talking head inanity. But this thing was like a spike in through the eardrums of preening, self-adoring "journalism" royalty. The topic--the gross failure of a mainstream news organization allegedly focused on finance to exert even minimum levels of skepticism while behaving like googly-eyed school girls in the presence of pop idols--was deeply valid.
Supposedly serious people tend to trust the likes CNBC (and Forbes and Fortune . . . and on and on) or at least used to.
In baseball terms, Stewart's CNBC shot was a home run. It took on something important and crushed it. (Right down to Stewart's final, righteous, cathartic "F**k you," to both the CNBC reporter and billionaire swindler Mark Stanford.)
"NewsBreak" seems to have a notion that humor is a good lubricant/accelerant for online news, and they're right about that. But the trick is marrying relevance--which requires taking risks--to humor.
By aping a news vehicle (local TV) that has been mocked and diminished for years for superficiality, lack of courage, and irrelevance, it seems to me they're taking the long way around to achieving value.
As cowed, timid and tragically incompetent as the institutional press was in the months leading up to George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq -- an episode of appalling group-think timidity in the face of fear-struck faux patriotism -- the performance of the so-called "financial press" in the years building to September's Wall Street collapse is even worse, with even more catastrophic consequences.
So, good one, dude.
Simultaneously I had been encouraged to check out the Star Tribune's freshly-launched (March 2) "NewsBreak," a very brief, daily, early afternoon round-up of news, some reported by Strib staffers. David Brauer pounced on it Day #1, and my pal Jim Leinfelder, who has done a lot of freelance work for the networks, offered his take of the premiere. (Dial down into the comments.) Being the fair-minded guy I am, I decided to give "NewsBreak" . . . mmmm four days . . . before ripping its gizzard out and feeding it to the crows.
The trouble is that I've expressed so much befuddlement over why the Strib (or, hell, the PiPress, if it had the budget for a camcorder) hasn't made a move to an "information company" (as opposed to a paper company) with all the video and audio and "personalities" that local TV news has sold us for so long, it seems both unfair and niggly to go after it when it finally commits to a semblance of the sort.
But, hell, I'm all about niggling unfairness.
Obviously, the Strib has been producing videos of one sort or another for a while now. What's new is the very WCCOKARE11KSTP-like "news desk" set with a cast of anchors, some of whom I've never before seen in clean shirts, much less suit jackets and ties, reading headlines and doing shtick with fellow reporters. What the . , , , ? My concept for good newspaper TV was a lot more guerrilla than this. It was antilocal news. A hand-held interview with, say, Paul McEnroe at his desk, offering an update on the Nasser Kazeminy case, or Chris Serres offering, you know, just a bit more on that Cargill piece he did a few weeks back, or, hell, even Neal Justin on what kind of perfume Lost star Evangeline Lilly was wearing January in LA would have been just fine. (The best would have been a daily segment with now-retired business writer/iconoclast Mike Meyers, an artesian font of candor and vivid denunciations.)
What am I saying? It would have been better.
The Leave It to Beaver theatrical formalities of local TV news is years past cheap parody. Even if you're winking at it, as James Lileks did on opening day, what's the point in aping it at all? Moreover, in addition the fact that when you take a bunch of writer wonks, dress them up in their prom clothes, and ask them to play Mike Pomeranz, you're risking the whole thing sounding like a high school production of Will Ferrell's Anchorman—everything the Internet is telling us about shifting tastes says the public much prefers honest informality to superficial authoritativeness.
And yes, yes, it's only a week into the bit. And yes, there's every reason to hope and expect the cast will relax and find their comfort zones. Lileks, an established pro at the radio/TV/online shtick, is clearly the one member of the gang most immediately ready for (mid-afternoon) prime time. Although Randy Salas has an offbeat attitude that I think can be groomed into something amusing, and my other old pal, movie critic Colin Covert--operating outside of the "NewsBreak" bit, but off the same desk--is his usual composed and polished self. (One star for Watchmen. Ouch.)
But, here's the deal: Since I don't want the superficiality of local TV news from my newspaper, why would anyone think I'd want it from my newspaper's TV show? What I want--and we're creeping back to Stewart's CNBC smackdown--is something I'm not getting via the silliness of TV news and the tight editorial hole of the print paper.
Oddly, the best example of this that I found on the Strib's menu of video selections was a self-taped chat between Twins beat writers Joe Christenson and LaVelle E. Neal from Ft. Meyers. Nothing slick about it. Two yobs talking into a camcorder. But if you're a fan, it's interesting to listen to the two discuss the day in camp. (There's plenty of the same on the Strib's Twins blogs, and LaVelle gets more airtime on KFAN than most hosts, but we're just talking in house production here.)
The fundamental issue is ambition. What does the Strib wants this to be? Local TV news-lite? (That would beg the question, how do you make cotton candy even lighter?) Or do you want to produce something that enhances your credibility and value to the news-consuming public?
Enter the Stewart model. His CNBC rip job is really just a step further than he goes almost every night with his clips of FoxNews/CNN/MSNBC talking head inanity. But this thing was like a spike in through the eardrums of preening, self-adoring "journalism" royalty. The topic--the gross failure of a mainstream news organization allegedly focused on finance to exert even minimum levels of skepticism while behaving like googly-eyed school girls in the presence of pop idols--was deeply valid.
Supposedly serious people tend to trust the likes CNBC (and Forbes and Fortune . . . and on and on) or at least used to.
In baseball terms, Stewart's CNBC shot was a home run. It took on something important and crushed it. (Right down to Stewart's final, righteous, cathartic "F**k you," to both the CNBC reporter and billionaire swindler Mark Stanford.)
"NewsBreak" seems to have a notion that humor is a good lubricant/accelerant for online news, and they're right about that. But the trick is marrying relevance--which requires taking risks--to humor.
By aping a news vehicle (local TV) that has been mocked and diminished for years for superficiality, lack of courage, and irrelevance, it seems to me they're taking the long way around to achieving value.
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
Does this mean a Hubbard newspaper is around the corner?
What would your take have been if Lileks and the others were in their "normal" attire?
Now THAT would have been funny!
Posted by: bertram jr. on March 6, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Stewart's CNBC bit was red hot--it should be required viewing for all TV viewers.
LAMBERT: I think it has already been seen by as many people as watched "Lost" Wednesday night.
Posted by: momkat on March 6, 2009 at 2:59 PM
I'd love to know who is ultimately in charge of the strategy for this piece and way this was rolled out, including the cheesy in-house promo ads. As you wrote, the whole thing seemed like a parody. And frankly, just because "Lileks" supposedly "gets" the internet and has a following does not mean he should be the torch-bearer for your strategy. I don't think he has the eye or ear for how this should evolve outside of his self-cultivated niche. In fact, I'd venture to say his meaty salary divvied up between some twenty-somethings full of piss and vinegar might produce better revenue prospects.
That said, how could they be so tone deaf. There are so many rich examples of how this is being done effectively. For example, Bittman's 3-5 minute segments on the NY Times Site or NPR's Tiny Desktop Concerts are two examples of how to add value to the content you're already producing.
LAMBERT: Pretty clearly its in step with the generally cautious, inoffensive, non-provocative tone of its Avista managers.
Posted by: Mike on March 6, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Jon Stewart was on Letterman the next night and continued his humorous diatribe:
"Jon Stewart wasted no time following Wednesday's epic CNBC take-down, appearing on the "Late Show with David Letterman" Thursday night and continuing the thought.
Except to Letterman, he didn't just focus on CNBC — he blasted all three 24-hour financial news channels, presumably CNBC, Fox Business, and Bloomberg.
"The thing that upsets me the most, honesty, there are three 24-hour financial networks," Stewart complained. "All their slogans are like, 'We know what's going on on Wall Street.' But then you turn it on during the crisis, and they're like, 'We don't know what's going on!'
It'd be like turning on The Weather Channel in a hurricane, and they're just doing this: 'Why am I wet? What's happening to me? And it's so windy! What's going on, I'm scared!' How do you not know?"
Watch here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/06/jon-stewart-trashes-cnbc_n_172521.html
LAMBERT: Does either local paper have anyone making such points?
Posted by: Mark on March 7, 2009 at 8:22 AM
What a spectacularly bad idea. The characteristic of local, or national, anchors is that they're shallow ignoramouses only one step up from pundits who are shallow, ignorant liars and hacks. The point of being a reporter is that he or she should actually know something, having investigated and thought about a subject.
Even if the world needed more blow-combed air-heads, why go to the newsroom for them since at least some there are there because they have faces best designed for print.
Something that occurred to me as I watch the Strib's devolution is that they're edging back towards that staple of the pre-60's papers, the Society page wherein the papers published endless pictures of the rich and powerful cavorting in their fancy dress.
LAMBERT: After Walker Lundy departed the PiPress the paper sank into a research-driven abyss of indecision and dithering, constantly asserting "what our readers want", as though there was this monolithic bloc demanding "stories you can use", "consumer information" and "deep reporting on communities of color". It was painfully obvious that they had idea at all what "our readers" wanted, much less who they were. What they did know was that they didn't want to risk offending anyone.
Posted by: john sherman on March 7, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Looking over the media landscape I is somewhat astonishing that StarTribune and PiPress have been so timid, reluctant, cautious, and inoffensive with new media. The NYT may have made mistakes along the way; they will probably continue forward in jumps and starts but they have been aggressive in extending their brand into the new digital realm. The publishers who survive will be the ones who creatively and ambitiously attack the new information platforms.
They must go after mobile device delivery on iPhones, Blackberry, and Windows Mobile and put their brand stamp on it now. In fact, as we speak, now could be too late. These brands must force themselves into the digital flow and be the trusted, reliable and first source for information about their focus concerns whether it be restaurants, sports, real estate, politics, news and daily reporting, investigative journalism, automotive.
The StarTribune and PiPress have been abysmal in going after segments or whole sections of the readership and an establishing a credible relationship that advertisers and the community can trust.
It really is no different than it has even been in making the connection and establishing brand trust. You have to think these executives and investors are spooked because they don't understand the essential bond that keeps a news and information source viable. They might be institutionally invested by they are not hands-on and informed investors who comprehend the workings of publishing for a committed readership.
LAMBERT: As long as the Strib is in the clutches of a diseased entity like Avista none of this stuff will get the full engagement it needs. And by the time it is out of the clutches the advertising market will support barely a quarter of the paper of today.
Posted by: Robb on March 8, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Thank you for the supportive comments. The movie review "videos" that we produce each week have been a surprise hit on the Strib website, usually coming in right under the day's top sports story. Last Friday(thanks to some clicky-link fine tuning that made it easier to access, and a "Watchmen" bump,")it was the most-viewed video feature by far, beating the formidable "Gophers Notebook" by a factor of 5! And all this without benefit of a blow dryer.
As for the "don't offend anyone" mission statement, you don't realize how angry an anonymous person with a keyboard can get until you tick off a "Watchmen" fan!
LAMBERT: Mr. Covert is of course the Strib's film critic. The combination of his review and Watchmen's 2 hr. 41 minute running time will keep me away from that one.
Posted by: Colin Covert on March 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Rather than seeing local newspapers devolve to pre-60's high society reporting, I'd like to see them return to the Speed Graphic era of huge visceral black-and-white crime photography with gripping high concept life and death investigative stories uncovering infidelity, murder, larceny, and Ponzi schemes.
Maybe a young cub reporter would actually uncover a Bernie Madoff or Tom Petters before they fleeced everybody or focus the public eye on profit taking executives scamming investors through bonus' rather than paying attention to the bottom line health of their companies.
I know its not high-minded, but I am just saying, it would be better than the polite trappings of high-society and pandering to the rich and their need for undue attention.
LAMBERT: Restrain our obsession with luxo-porn? That seems almost un-American.
Posted by: Robb on March 11, 2009 at 9:24 AM
CNBC has about as much relevance (and ratings) on cable as the regional channel 6 community journal. Cramer (a total joke) went after the guy Stewart has bootlicked and cheer leaded for - and he lashed out. It was sort of funny.
Now that Stewart's side is in power, are we going to see him take on the likes of Pelosi, Reid, or the President? He's just another comedian who found a niche audience fueling an "anti-establishment" mentality to the left young and old. Seeing Stewart go after a little watched joke on a channel no one watches (or should for real financial advice) doesn't really earn him his street cred as some hard hitting journalist.
LAMBERT: Well except that the mythical "hard-hitting journalists" didn't get around to asking these questions ... I mean before the s**t went down.
Posted by: Namzso on March 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Did I miss where Jon Stewart was asking these questions prior to the meltdown? How does his give him any more credibility than the corporate journalists?
LAMBERT: Is Stewart a financial reporter?
Posted by: Namzso on March 13, 2009 at 10:34 AM
LAMBERT: Is Stewart a financial reporter?
Well is he a journalist, comedian, talk show host, actor, or all of the above? If the "J" word is part of this, than shouldn't he be held to the same standards you hold the others? From what I gather you hold him in higher regard.
LAMBERT: I don't want to belabor the obvious, but Stewart the satirist is asking if it is not really too much to expect professional journalists to do THEIR job.
Posted by: Namzso on March 13, 2009 at 11:35 AM