Son of a Millworker, or Sonuva...?

That Point No. 7 was especially fine. And here's some unsolicited advice for the cancer-stricken wife: "If you gave your husband power of attorney in the event of your incapacity, rescind it. Now."

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

Isn't it completely within your power to not write pieces that you know are worthless for people who loathe you for writing them, Amy Sullivan?
-
It's almost like she's powerless to resist her desires... rather like certain politicians....
-
I wouldn't ordinarily write something so obnoxious, but secure in the knowledge that you never, ever read or participate in comment threads: Amy, your articles and posts are nearly universally witless and uninformative. Print journalism is circling the drain because people like you collect paychecks despite failing to provide any useful service of any sort for anyone. You are terrible at your job and at life.

Guys, there's no law that says print media thinks this way and web media that way. The personal insults you hurl must be to your intelligence but I trust you're better than that.

Stuart, always appreciate your comments, there always thoughtful and intelligent, even if I don't always agree with them.

But this is a blog, and this post went up at 1:30 in the morning. Let's cut her some slack. Its not like Congress was working around the clock to actually deliver Healthcare Reform Bill that - as you regularly remind us Stuart - will actually cost us less than healthcare currently costs per each American compared to the rest of developed nation.

I give you credit Amy, funny post - some times these posts remind us that we were here to see a rising star of a politician flame up and burn up and become a footnote in history. I can't wait to see that entry in encyclopedias 50 years from now when I'll chuckle to myself.

Actually nflfoghorn, there is a difference--
.
The mainstream media claim they have to focus on this ridiculous crap because that's what their audience demand. Now while I personally think it a vapid excuse, it's their business and they are entitled to drive it into the ground any way they see fit. However, in this venue it is clear that this audience is decidedly uninterested in this ridiculous crap and unless the goal is to drive it into the ground as well, perhaps they might consider differentiating between the two venues.
.
Time.com benefits from the cache of having a blog that has become a must read for the punditocracy. A status that can only be reached when a blog draws intelligent and thoughtful commenters like Stuart and so many others who are only here because they want to escape this kind of msm drivel. If only Amy respected her audience enough to read their comments she would know that and she would realize that she is contributing to an atmosphere that is driving away the very engaging commentary that it is known for. I fear that with so many of the old regular commenters like jayacroyd, jamesLA, sgwhite, 53, sacred, Kathy, pourmecoffee, cincinnatus, joymama, even Rose (miss you girl) , etc., no longer stopping by or spending much less time than they used to, we may already be headed in that direction.

How is the fact that you can't stop reading tabloid stupidity her fault?

Please, please...please, for God's sake don't do this to us again, Amy Sullivan. Can you help us out here?

.
Please, please, please Amy, continue to write on this no matter how much it makes you "puke into the literary latrine".
.
It is only by exposing these types of behaviors, bringing them to the forefront of the publics attention, yes even throwing it into their faces that they will for once, wake up and understand their elected officials in Washington are nothing but a bunch of corrupt lunatics for the most part.
.
For those elected officials who are doing the right thing, keeping standards of behavior that the majority of Americans also believe in, then and only then will this type of behavior stop.
.
Listening to "chicken little" above, and adopting his beliefs and values for reporting, simply puts you at the level of the individuals like Edwards. If you do not report on this behavior, it will continue and even get worse. We must hold these people accountable. They must know that they are not above the law, or that their behaviors are not acceptable. They must know that if they make bad choices in life, then they will also pay for those choices.
.
Continue what you do Amy, and report on the things you believe to be of importance to the American public.
.
Our elected officials should be held to a higher standard. If they want to speak in our schools to our children, then they should also emulate the type of behavior which is deemed acceptable. Progressives like stuart believe that they should be allowed to “live and let live”. There are no real values, morals or beliefs for the Progressives. They simply want each and every individual to be regarded as the one who will make their own decisions on their behavior as they see fit to do so. They believe that the likes of the ACLU are there to protect those individual freedoms, and permit this type of behavior to continue unchecked. But a country without values, morals and beliefs are nothing more than any uncivilized group of orangutans running across the plains in Africa.
.
Are you an orangutan, Amy? If so, then you will follow stuarts direction and not print anything like this in the future. You will simply run behind stuart, smelling his butt and never knowing the difference between what is right or wrong.

ymmartin:

always appreciate your comments, there always thoughtful and intelligent, even if I don't always agree with them.

Thanks very much for the kind words.

Let's cut her some slack. Its not like Congress was working around the clock...

I intended my criticism to be more humorous than anything else, but there is a purpose.
.
For years --decades, now-- we've heard various explanations from mainstream journalism proponents as to the long slide into the tabloid toilet. Some of those explanations revolve around the notion that cable news and tabloid TeeBee news hurt journalism ( http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=318 ):

Virtually all news media executives and journalists agree that tabloid television programs have hurt their profession. Roughly 85% of the national and local news media say shows like "Hard Copy" and "Inside Edition" have had a negative effect on journalism. Only 3%-4% say the effect has been positive. This sentiment is shared by the print and television news media.
.
When asked about the competition spawned by the increased number of cable outlets, the press is somewhat less positive. Roughly four-in-ten say competition and the increased number of cable news outlets has made journalism better, while one-third say this trend has made journalism worse.
.
At both the national and local levels, those in television news have a more positive view of this trend. More than half of national television journalists think this competition has made journalism better, compared to only 36% of national print journalists. Similarly, 45% of those who work in local television news say this has made things better; 35% of the local print press agree.
.
Among those who think competition and the increased number of cable outlets has hurt journalism, many say the need to compete has lowered journalistic standards. Those in the national media also think competition has fostered an interest in getting the story first rather than getting the story right. Many in local television news complain that, as a result of increased competition, ratings now take precedence over quality.

Another explanation for this decline in journalism's quality is that publications are simply responding to audience demand ( http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/07/07/mj-coverage-how-much-is-too-much/ )

Is the news media overcovering Michael Jackson's continuing death at the expense of news that matters? In the New York Daily News, David Hinckley argues that the media is "just responding to Michael Jackson's fans demands," with coverage that audiences have ratified with ratings.

Well, I have a theory (even though you should read James Poniewozik's piece in full) too:
.
Publications like Time are somewhat like the Democratic Party (stop laughing, I don't mean it like that!)
.
For decades, these publications have felt confident that they could count on engaged news consumers like us to support their product regardless of content, even when they descended into tabloidism. In their minds, at least, there was nowhere else for us to go. They were the only legitimate journalism, and so we were stuck with them and their product.
.
In that perceived situation, the case could be made that readership could be increased by appealing to Access Hollywood's audience. After all, if the serious news consumers weren't going anywhere, why not compete with People's cover at the checkout line?
.
Also, if nobody could point to an overwhelmingly negative response from real readers, then why not get as many low-information, gossip-munching eyeballs as possible?
.
It's this tendency that's analogous to national Democrats' tendency to take "the base" for granted, and actively attempt to court low-information, low-engagement independents at the expense of a real and principled message.
.
Now it's a different story, however. Just like the DSCC is going to get a reply to their fund-raising email along the lines of "Senate Democrats are screwing the public on health care, why would I give them a dime?", it's also incumbent upon serious journalism's "base" to let institutions know how badly our being taken for granted is received.
.
I understand that a reasonable case can be made for "If you don't like it, just move on." (I make that case a great deal myself in many circumstances), but it seems crazy to me to waste the opportunity to deny the journo's principle justification for tabloidism --that we really in our heart of hearts are lusting for it-- and call them out for being unwilling or unable to distinguish their real readers from the carnival funhouse passers-by.
.
Thanks for reading and considering this, ymmartin,

Stuart, thank you again for your thoughtful and insightful perspective. You really are a valuable commenter to the Swamp. Dee is right, its said to see so many of the old commenters (I've been here awhile myself, but I know enough not to comment too often when I'm not the expert) leave because they have really made this blog the great source that it is.

Your point regarding "audience demand" is very nuanced and interesting, something I'm going to have to think about before responding directly. But one point I'd like to add is the 'tribalization' of media, which I think resonates with your point. I happen to work, and have worked in the past at media sites of varying sizes, and to me what Time does by using tabloid-like content is simply their desperation to reach as large of an audience as possible. There's no doubt - and its an unfortunate aspect of our society - that tabloid-like content brings the eyeballs, regardless of actual interest. Hey look, we're all here commenting and most of us don't care about Edwards anymore.

MSM sites like Time, just like as large TV networks can't handle the transition of their audience to Cable for example, can't handle how increasingly niche content has become. People now choose to go exactly to what interests them, that's relatable, that's pertinent. Monolithic content sources are the dinosaurs of media, they offer very little depth and in order to retain their audiences (and the hefty ad $s they charge for the exposure) they are now forced to go to the bottom of the toilet of content in order to get anyone to swing by.

Time should expect their audiences to shrink, and instead focus on the niche, the narrow, the relevant to the portion of the audience who matter - like us commenters. Not only would that mean a better class of content, a better class of reader, but maybe a better class - and higher premium dollars - of advertiser.

Though I still stand by my earlier comment, Amy its a funny post.

I got a good laugh from the folks who lambasted Amy about the 'we' being here going on to say that it was all Amy's fault for dredging it up again.

Hey, folks, YOU'RE READING IT.

So, yes, here 'we' are once again.

The simple way to avoid being here is to ignore the articles on subjects you are sick of hearing about. That's not hard. Amy is merely doing what journalblogists do these days: Write anything that drives traffic to the advertisers. She is simply being a good soldier in the news as entertainment industry.

If no one reads the articles, they'll find something else to write about in the hopes of attracting readers. That's how the world works these days. Ask any reporter out there. It's all about sensationalism and sex sells.

At least it isnt another article about Swine Flu. The flip side to the sex sells aspect of the "newstainment" industry is that fear sells, too.

As far as the article goes, it has all the lurid attraction of a five car fatal crash on the freeway with all of us rubbernecking the politically dead body of Mr. Edwards...

…and ponder I did (after cooling down from earlier rants). Amy offers one view, but what else is out there? European views on affairs, and their media coverage, are different from ours, though even they will squawk about egregious scandals such as Berlusconi's or the ‘60's Profumo coupling that helped bring down the British govt. (yeah, “ill health” was blamed for the PM's resignation, bwahahaha) Hmm, now if we can get Amy to analyze American vs. European romantic differences and their moral implications? Her UK training can come in handy for her work after all, yes?

Amen!

Double amen. I wish the name John Edwards would just go away too. Yet I'm the one who read above the fold, clicked to go deeper, and then even bothered to scour the comments. Where I found such vitriol that it turned my stomach. Very poor showing.

Reasonable enough, on Point #2. I get a time out.

Um, that was #9, actually.

(start from the beginning)

Um, Text, by most everyone with a beating heart, of which for you we're apparently still searching.