The Golden Ticket and the NPR Time Delay

At this point I'm used to the time lag between when news breaks and when mainstream media gets around to reporting it. It's still a little disconcerting when I run across an specific example -- especially from a usually reliable source like National Public Radio.

On July 16, NPR reported on a new opera premiering in St. Louis. The article was a pretty good informative piece about The Golden Ticket, an opera based on Roald Dahl's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But the date's important. According to the article,

The opera called The Golden Ticket seemed like just that — a natural way for opera companies to attract new audiences by bringing families into the opera house. But the world premiere under way now at Opera Theatre of St. Louis did not have a sweet ride from conception to opening night.

Felicity Dahl says that if sweets improve with age, then The Golden Ticket is ready to be tasted. 

"It naturally takes a long time, but this took far too long," she says. "I take my hat off to St. Louis for biting the bullet, and I don't think they'll live to regret it."

The story makes it all sound like no one knows yet how the work will be received.

But I already knew.

One of the cast members, Jennifer Rivera, wrote in her blog "Trying to Remain Opera-tional" on July 14,

So last night, at our opening of The Golden Ticket, something wonderful happened.

The real story is the World Premiere, and that it was a success. I can say that it felt from stage as if the audience was with us every step of the way. They laughed in all the right moments, and even in some new moments where we hadn't necessarily anticipated the laughs.

[Ms. Rivera's post tells of something else that happened at the world premiere -- I encourage you to read it].

And the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote on the same day:

There aren’t that many new operas designed to make the audience laugh out loud. “Ticket,” which opened Sunday evening, does just that — and with honest, sweet humor — combining ingenious music that neatly parodies assorted operatic cliches and a clever libretto that has fun with Dahl’s delicious morality play. Add to that a nearly ideal cast, and you have something enjoyable for adults and children alike.

So let's review:

The evening of the premier Jennifer Rivera posts that the opera was a hit with the audience. The same night the St. Louis paper says the same thing. So the word's out to those following this story -- the opera's a success.

Two days later NPR reports on this new opera being staged in St. Louis. The basic thrust of their story:  How will the audience receive it? Only time will tell.

Time's already told.

Come on, even if the story was written before the premier, a quick check on the 15th would have pulled up those stories, and the article could have been made current before being released on the 16th.

Running out-of-date stories? Now that's lamestream media.

 - Ralph

Noel Sickles and the Art of Sequential Art - Epilogue

Back in September I did a series of posts on the art of Noel Sickles. I did have one final post on the subject, though. In light of the new trend of newspapers dropping comics altogether, it might be worth while to look at what's been lost.

Current newspaper comics are much smaller than they were in the 1930's and 1940's. And smaller space means smaller panels, which means less detail in the drawings. it also means fewer panels, which decreases the pacing of the story. It also limits the area for word balloons, which means shorter, simpler dialog.

In other words, Noel Sickles' artwork would be impossible to print in a modern newspaper's comics section.

Take a close look at the panel below. It sets the scene for the action sequence to follow. Notice how Sickles lays everything out. There's the train, waiting on the siding, puffing smoke and ready to roll. You can see the trainmen in conversation next to the telegraph pole, and down near the corner, Scorchy and Spike furtively moving towards them. The scene is gray, as it takes place at night, but judicious placement of black shadows through everything in relief, and give you a sense of depth.

If you had to fit it into a standard panel size today, it would look like mud.

(click on image to enlarge)

In the story, Scorchy and his pals are embroiled in a Central American civil war. They've hijacked a train to escape rebel bombers, and are currently holed up in a tunnel. Notice in the two sequences below, how Sickles tells his story.

There's his signature use of dramatic lighting, especially on the faces. But look carefully at the three panels with long shots. They're all consistent. The telegraph station, although shown from three different angles, is clearly the same structure. The switch is in the same relative position, and there are two telegraph poles (no more, no less) between it and the building.

Many artists wouldn't sweat such details. After all, this was meant to be read once and forgotten. Getting the details approximately right would serve -- but not for Sickles. And that careful attention makes the sequence more believable, and more engaging.

Finally, look at the smoke coming out of the locomotive in the last panel. It puffs out in a realistic fashion consistent with the movement of the engine. Motion in a static panel.

(click on image to enlarge)

To many, comics are superfluous -- which is why they continue to be treated so shabbily by newspaper editors.

And that's too bad. Noel Sickles and the golden age of adventure comics might be a thing of the past. But there are plenty of talented artists and writers who can tell engaging stories through comics given a chance. I wish they had it.

- Ralph

Podcast Review: Inside Europe

I like to stay informed -- which means I usually have to travel beyond the bounds of mainstream media. Fortunately, with podcasting this isn't hard to do.

One of my primary sources for European news is "Inside Europe" from Deutsche Welle (DW), the international broadcast service of Germany, tasked with providing news and information about Germany and Europe throughout the world.

Some public radio stations in this country carried some Deutsche Welle programs, but with NPR's plethora of news programming, it was often difficult to find room for any other news source in the schedule. Enter podcasting.

DW produces the one-hour "Inside Europe" program once a week, which makes it a perfect anthology of the top European news stories for American listeners. The format is very similar to "Morning Edition" or "All Things Considered" -- long-form stories with background sounds, lots of actualities (interviewees), and well-reasoned, informative reporting.

And "Inside Europe" is just that -- a news program about Europe. German stories don't get prominence, and I have yet to hear any particular bias in the reporting. Germany isn't favorably pictured -- the bad gets reported with the good. And there isn't a pro- or anti- U.S. slant, either. American actions are reported, but only as they affect Europe.

Virtually every "breaking" news story from Europe breathlessly reported on MSNBC or CNN I already heard about the week, or sometimes several weeks, before on "Inside Europe."

That dust-up between Georgia and Russia? Not a surprise to anyone following the posturing that's been going on between the countries for some time. None of that made the news here -- but it certainly did in Europe. The French immigration riots, the Turkish political crises, the problem of English farmers competing against European imports, the events leading up to Kosovo's bid for independence, all of these stories (and more) have been brought to my attention thanks to "Inside Europe," and they're keeping me up to date on their developments.

"Inside Europe" is a remarkable news program, and one I find invaluable as a global citizen. (And if you don't think you're a global citizen, then you're just not living with reality.)

Remember, you don't need an iPod to listen to a podcast. Just download to your computer and enjoy.

- Ralph

Day 208 of the WJMA Web Watch. (The relaunch of the WJMA website? Now that would be news!)

Going off the grid -- the personal cost

Yesterday I talked about going off the grid. So what does no Internet access mean personally?

Well, to me it means being cut off from friends and family. Sure, I have my cell phone, but it's not the same. The updates I receive from social media sites like Twitter are a passive and simple way to keep in touch without conversation. The Twitter feed gives me brief snapshots of how everyone's going through their day, providing quick insights and -- through links -- interesting and informative information to further explore.

I'm not much of a Facebook person, but there will be posts that will go unanswered for the next few days. Of course, I won't know about them, so it won't be too bad. Sometimes it's good to just step away from the monitor.

Personal e-mails will go unanswered, but that's OK. Professional e-mails get responded to within 24 hours. Personal ones usually aren't that time sensitive anyway.

Our motel room has broadcast TV access only -- no cable. I won't be able to check the BBC like I'm used to for news, nor visit any of the other online news sources that keep me up to date. I'll have to rely on whatever the Fox43 news team chooses to show me, and the Intelligencer Journal decides to print. That's not too bad -- it gives me insight on what folks across the digital divide experience everyday.

And on the plus side, Dad and I will have a lot of quality time without interruption. And that's what I value most about these trips. I've heard family stories I've never heard before, gained some insight into Dad's life, and what events shaped his personality. And we've had a lot of conversations that, quite frankly, don't lend themselves to 140-character posts.

- Ralph

Day 121 of the WJMA Web Watch.

"How Martin Agronsky Killed the 6:00 Evening News" by John Amos

Let's take stock of the news business.

Newspapers can no longer compete with the computer. Subscriptions are down; advertising dollars are down. Everyone is reading online. No doubt, I'll soon be arm-twisted into giving up my daily paper -- an actual, physical object, delivered to my house before dawn -- for some ghastly dot-com news source. I'm resigned. There just aren't enough of us who want real ink on real paper anymore. The Newspaper is Dead! Long Live the Internet!

Television news programs have suffered a similar fate. The solid, reliable networks with their solid, reliable anchors (Cronkite, Jennings, Brokaw, and the like) have been pushed aside by flashier, tabloid-esque cable channels. And while I've never been a big fan of television news, opting instead for the breadth and depth of newspapers, it's still sad to see what's happened.

The way I figure it, Martin Agronsky is responsible.

In the late 1960's Agronsky, a respected correspondent for (at times) all three major networks, dropped his job as a reporter to begin a new kind of public affairs program. The show was revolutionary, visionary, so far ahead of its time that no one could possibly realize the impact it would have on the way we view "the news" in this country.

Agronsky's idea was simple: Gather four experts in a studio to discuss the major political events of the day.

I didn't start watching until the 70's after the show had been established for some time. The Jimmy Carter fiasco was in full bloom, and I wanted to know how things could have degenerated to such a pitiable state. So in addition to reading the papers, I turned to Agronsky and Company for analysis.

In those days, the cast consisted of a young arch-conservative named George Will; Carl Rowan, a self-avowed liberal and the most prominent African-American political writer of his day; journalistic elder statesman, Hugh Sidey, editor of Newsweek; and Agronsky himself.

The show was interesting, informative and dignified. The participants discussed the hot political topics of the week. When they disagreed, they did so respectfully. At the end of every half hour, I always came away more knowledgeable about the issues.

But over time, something curious happened. I started seeing these pundits as caricatures. Was George Will really that stiff? Was Rowan really that naive? Would Sidney ever utter an opinion that didn't sound soothing and grandfatherly? Gradually, the substance of their conversation began to get lost in the unreal glow of their television personas.

Without my realizing it, these figures had become celebrities, had morphed into Famous Television Personalities. Once that happened, I was no longer watching the news. I was watching a cartoon. An entertaining cartoon, for sure. Even a somewhat informative one. But a cartoon nonetheless.

The success of Agronsky paved the way for other, less edifying shows. First came The McGlaughlin Group, a shout-fest in which the experts spent their 30 minutes bickering and shouting rudely. Then came Crossfire, pitting partisans from Right and Left, who talked past each other about the issue du jour. Crossfire spawned The Capital Gang, an Agronsky knockoff that truly was more about personalities than issues.

Today the imbecilic political gab-a-thon has become the norm. We're offered The Situation Room, The Verdict, The Factor, and Countdown, mini-dramas with the Star Journalist as central character. In addition to professional yakkers like Wolf Blitzer and Bill O'Reilly, we now have pretty-boy David Gregory, a former White House reporter, whose show reduces politics to a game. Fox's insufferable Sean Hannity spouts jingoistic blather from the Right, and MSNBC's equally insufferable Keith Olberman, trying way too hard to be funny, spins every issue from the Left.

I know all this because I watch. It's my guilty pleasure, my pitiful substitute for the real thing.

Such shows never simply report the news. Instead, they analyze; they predict; they opine. In truth, simple reporting is held in pretty low esteem these days. Any young reporter worth his salt aspires to more. They all have ambitions. Everyone wants to be a star.

Without question, Martin Agronsky was a pioneer; yet I'm sure he wouldn't approve of the path he unwittingly blazed. He wanted a better-informed public, not a citizenry polarized by preening, demagogic talking heads.

Fact: We get the politicians we deserve. Corollary: We also get the media we deserve.

Maybe if we quit watching this silliness, it would go away. Maybe if we demanded better, we'd get it.

Naaah.

- John Amos
from his column "Every Now and Then"
©2008 by John Amos, reprinted by permission
"Every Now And Then: Occasional Essays"

Day 51 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Some People *Really* Don't Get It

This post may seem like a rant about something very small and local, but it's really not. At the heart of it is a concept that's relevant to any business looking to increase traffic to its website -- especially a media company.

According to a recent We Media/Zogby Interactive poll (as reported by Reuters)

Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe traditional journalism is out of touch, and nearly half are turning to the Internet to get their news.... While most people think journalism is important to the quality of life, 64 percent are dissatisfied with the quality of journalism in their communities.

Radio stations and newspapers across the country are looking at shrinking audiences and circulation numbers as more people move to the Internet for information and entertainment.

As content creators, these businesses have the potential to successfully transition to this new market. But only if they understand why it's important to do so, and how the demands of the Internet differ from their offline business models.

Let's make it country simple: people go online to get instant information. And if potential customers don't see it on your site, they'll search on until they do -- and it's not likely they'll be back.

Real world example (rant time).

Tuesday we had Town Council elections in Orange, Virginia. Wednesday I wanted to find out the results. I started with the two local sources of information -- the Orange Review, and WJMA FM.

The Orange Review is a weekly paper, but on the bottom of their website's front page is a box titled "from the Continuous News Desk." So how current was the Orange Review's news? Over 24 hours after the election, the top story was:

Six scramble for two seats - Published 6 days, 11 hours, 40 minutes ago

News flash: a weekly post is not equal to continuous news.

So I went to the WJMA website and clicked on headline news. Their news was even less helpful:

Incumbents won in Culpeper and lost in Orange in yesterday's town council elections in Culpeper & Orange

WTF?!? We've had this discussion about WJMA's "news" before, and things haven't changed. WHO WON? WHAT ARE THEIR NAMES? They won't tell us who won, but they repeat the names of the counties twice in the same headline!

So I went to the Daily Progress, which is the regional daily paper based in Charlottesville (about 40 miles away). Their headline?

Orange voters pick Gibson, Higginbotham

Thank you. That's all I wanted to know (although the rest of the story was well worth reading and had lots of additional helpful information).

So count me into that 65%.

And there's an economic impact to this story as well. In the future, I'll go to the Daily Progress website for local information. Which means traffic for their site will go up, and traffic for the Orange Review and WJMA sites will go down. And since traffic impacts online ad revenue, the Progress' site just generated a little more money for their company. Sure, I'm just one person, but how many others in Orange County have learned the same lesson?

- Ralph