Our pop music writer, Ed Bumgardner, wrote a fascinating dissection of Rolling Stone magazine today in relish. Ed has forgotten more about music than most of us know, and his insights into what ails RS are a reflection and refraction on life, culture, baby boomers and the publishing business.
The occasion for all this analysis is Rolling Stone’s 1,000th issue, which is a milestone and a chance to see how far it’s come and what’s been lost and found on the journey. It’s also a case study in how difficult it is to remain fresh and relevant for nearly 40 years. The earlier editions—before all the hippies became tech-bazillionaires etc,—was much funnier, more savage and biting. Now, it’s all more manicured. A safe, vaguely counter-cultural theme park. More life style than a way of life.
Ed explains it better than I do.
What Rolling Stone has done is follow its audience and embraced the contradictions (and advertising opportunities) of modern life, our “Rain forest-saving, Hip-Hop-loving, SUV-driving, Whole Foods-snacking, don’t take away my oil but don’t go to war” world. You can’t blame them for that from a business standpoint. If they had remained on the outside, they would most probably be going the way of Betamax.
It’s the dance of all publishers, particularly in the news business. How do you balance what people ought to know with what they want to know? A daily question and conversation. In a perfect world, those two knowledge bins converge. In the real world, the best is overlap and a hope that the innate curiosity we possess pushes readers from the familiar to the unknown.
Your host is Ken Otterbourg, the managing editor at the Winston-Salem Journal. It's a forum to discuss the media, from
The idea of “what people ought to know” sounds dangerous, like editors and publishers are somehow smarter than their readers. I’m sure that’s not what you meant to imply, Ken. Can you elaborate, please?
It’s not dangerous. It’s called news judgment. It’s what we do everyday, i.e. figure out the proper mix of stories that we think an intelligent, well-informed public should read.
It’s subjective and objective, guided by training, experience, intelligence, knowledge of the local community, curiosity, a sense of mission and fairness, and sometimes a gut instinct on what is a good story.
We don’t claim to be smarter than everyone, but we talk about this stuff endlessly, because a)we love to do it; and b) it’s our job.
This was a column about music not national news. Ed knows his stuff and you can pretty much rely on his recommendations and not ever be disappointed.
If anyone is in a position to tell people what they ought to know, it is Ed.
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.