Michael Wolraich's picture

    Era's End

    By Michael Wolraich on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 6:42pm | Potpourri

    I watched live stand-up comedy one night last week. In an attempt to energize a quiet crowd, a comedian remarked, "So Barack Obama will be President," which elicited a cheer. She then remarked that it was a guaranteed way to wake up a room, which got a laugh. But the laugh carried an ironic note. The trick is dated. Our ecstatic enthusiasm for Obama's exhilarating election is fading. When another comedian tried the same routine later in the night, the response was modest. When a third comedian did it, apparently without realizing that we'd already played that game twice over, the audience remained uncomfortably mute. The trick is played out. We still look forward to Obama's presidency, but the old era has already come to an end.

    Eras often pass unheralded. Several years after a new era begins, we may realize that everything has changed. We perceive the death of the old era reflected in the vitality of the new. This one is different. The old era has ended with a bang, not a whimper. Obama's election was only one of several earth-shaking explosions in 2008. The world changes before our eyes like a flower blooming, or wilting, in a stop-action film. We sit on the cusp, and for once, we know it.

    I planned to write this post in a traditional way, beginning, middle, and end, bound up in linear coherence. But in a nod to Deadman's innovation, enthusiastically embraced by readers and fellow bloggers, I'm going to do it daggy-style, a series of suggestions--unfocused and hopefully provocative. This post is more about death than birth. I'll offer predictions and look for more from readers, but I don't know what's coming, only what has seems to have taken leave. I look forward to the future with hope and trepidation. Here we go...

      1. Government: Big is the new small
      2. Democrats: The new technocracy
      3. Republicans: Divided they fall
      4. Civil Rights: The end of racial and feminist politics
      5. International Relations: China rises
      6. Urban planning: Suburban swell
      7. Fashion: No more dumpsters
      8. Music: Dancing and thrashing again
      9. Art: Post-post-modernism
      10. Literature: Let's get serious
      11. Entertainment: Help me out
      12. News Media: Blogmania
        Topics: 
        Potpourri

        Comments

        1. Government. Small government is finished, for now. The relentless market which powered us through the financial boom of the 80's, the technology boom of the 90's, and the real estate bubble of the 00's, lies prone and helpless. This year, a fiercely pro-business Republican administration has initiated the end of that era. They had no choice. We need the government's help now in a way that we haven't in decades. It's not about welfare mothers and the elderly anymore. The only force keeping us from descending into a despondent cycle of depression and destitution is our government. The President elect offers an unusual promise of Federal salvation: "Help is on the way." I'm grateful for that Obama lead us and confident in his ability, but this dependence on the government--on Treasury and Federal Reserve staffers--is not without risk. Under Obama's administration, fewer individuals will hold more power than at any time in half a century. They will make mistakes. Ideas that seem sensible today will prove woefully misguided tomorrow. Free markets in excess lead to ruin. Centralized governance in excess even more so. But right now, we have no choice.


        by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 6:43pm

        Government, at least in our lifetimes, has never been small. It has just had different priorities. Big military and big breaks for business vs. big social safety net and big help for the middle class. It was Al Gore's initiative in the early 90s that shrunk the size of government, but in terms of initiatives, I don't think it got smaller. The Bush administration has gutted regulations, which some would consider contracting the size of government. But at the same time spied pretty much wholesale on their citizens and spent like crazy in two wars. I think that government is not going to get bigger, at least not in the long run. But I hope it is going to get smarter and less wasteful (although I'm not sure less wasteful is possible with a bureacracy that large). I'd like to see it focused more on providing cover for individual lives--health care, child care, innovation in alternative energy, education reform.


        by Orlando on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 7:08pm

        Sorry, my terminology was misleading. By "big government," I didn't mean more Federal spending. I meant that government will take, or rather is taking, a more active role in managing the economy instead of sitting back and tweaking interest rates as the market rages.


        by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 8:34pm

        couldnt agree more both in terms that the wind is blowing in the direction of more government involvement and that the risk of government involvement leading to more problems is high. i still say we did not use government to control the excesses of the free market and we will be unable to use government to control the collateral damage from those excesses. It's hard to imagine with the current state of the economy, but I fear our attempts to spare us from pain will give us a bigger headache down the road.


        by Deadman on Wed, 12/03/2008 - 12:22am

        2. Democrats. I have previously written that Obama will bring us a new technocracy. The pragmatic movement within the Democratic party did not begin with Obama. Bill Clinton was our first non-ideological president in recent history, and as my friend Bruce noted at TPM, Dukakis also promised competence during his campaign. But Obama has been the first to run on an explicitly anti-ideological platform. If his cabinet selections and campaign performance are any evidence, he will also succeed in delivering the promised effectiveness. There will be outcries from the left wing over policy and appointments, but as long as Obama's government is effective and popular, the complaints will be relatively muted, and the Democrats will continue to trend towards pragmatism.


        by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 6:43pm

        I'm not too sure about this. I think Obama leans left. He is pragmatic and I think he won't dismiss a good idea just because it comes from right field as opposed to left. But make no mistake, ideologically, he is a liberal.

        by Orlando on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 7:12pm

        By anti-idealogical I don't mean that he's centrist. He does lean left, but he avoids labels, he decries the idealogical divide in Washington, and his political appointments seem driven by competence rather than by idealogy. Contrast with G.W., the old "compassionate conservative" who provoked partisan battles in congress and who vetted hires for both political and non-political positions by measuring ideological fervor.


        by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 8:11pm

        I hate it when good words get hijacked by bad people, like Bush and Cheney. You're right, of course, but everyone is steeped in some ideology. It informs and guides their decisions. And now, after 8 years, it's somehow considered bad form.

        I think Obama's ideology will absolutely guide his decision-making, but he is smart enough to know that if you only listen to your own inner guide, your decisions can become dogmatic. That's why I think he values opinions from all points on the ideological spectrum. 


        by Orlando on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 8:43am

        I've always considered "ideological" to be a bad word. It suggests decisions made for dogmatic reasons. It's not that anyone can be free of ideology, but I think of "ideological" people as those who are blinded by it. But perhaps this is semantic quibble. Would you agree that Obama is less driven by ideology than most other recent presidents?


        by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 9:58am

        No, I wouldn't agree with that. Because I think that ideology is what drives people. But I would agree that he is less dogmatic. So, it does look like it might be a matter of semantics.


        by Orlando on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 11:00am

        How about this...can we agree that Obama is not an ideologue?


        by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 11:48am

        Yes!


        by Orlando on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 3:04pm

        3. Republicans. The Reagan era is over. Reagan has become to Republicans what JFK is to Democrats, still a hero but no longer the father of its ideology. Muscular internationalism died with Iraq. Faith in the market died in the financial crisis. John McCain's campaign exposed fierce fissures within the party, all the more ironic because he was a favorite of moderates yet succeeded in energizing the wing in his rightward turn and selection of Sarah Palin. The schism is still in its infancy. Obama will likely draw accommodation from fiscally-focused moderates and provoke hatred from socially-focused right wingers, increasing the wedge between the two sides. Like the British Tories under Tony Blair and the French Socialists today, they will bicker helplessly until a new hero arises to reunite the party. Expect a rough primary in 2012.


        by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 6:44pm

        If something like the attack on Mumbai happens here, frightened whites may well flock to the Sarah Palin wing.


        by Donal on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 9:24pm

        I would imagine that such an event would serve to unite hawks and social conservatives, as 9/11 did.


        by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 9:59am

        4. Civil Rights. Racial politics as we know it is over. Obama's election did not prove that racism is dead, and perhaps it will never truly die, but it bleeds, and its grip on the nation is slipping at long last. Obama himself will likely emphasize social class over race, and young black men and women will follow his lead in downplaying racial identity. Black activists will continue the trend of turning towards internal solutions to address the ills that still afflict black communities. Feminist politics is also fading. With fewer missteps by the Clinton campaign, we would have been celebrating the first female president instead of the first black one. The older generation of feminists will remain a force, but they'll fail to attract many young women to the cause. Gay rights will be become more prominent as gay marriage laws, propositions, rulings, and demonstrations skitter across the states. I expect Obama, ever cautious, to stay clear of the gay marriage issue until he feels that the country is ready to move forward.


        by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 6:44pm

        Hmm. I think reports of the death of the movements borne out of the 1960s have been largely exaggerated. They've evolved, just as any social change movement does. But there are still many organizations and individuals out there, fight the good fight, as it were. Just because one or two politicians is elevated does not mean that the impacts of institutionalized racism and sexism disappears from the lives of individuals. The concerns are different these days, as are the ways that organizations go about addressing them. And if you think that racism isn't going to be a problem in America going forward, I suggest you take a look at the immigration issue. And also the lives of Muslims living outside of major cities (and inside of major cities). The growth of these communities as well as the problems we are facing as a country and as a world, have introduced a whole new set of issues.

        by Orlando on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 7:17pm

        Did I really just say, "I suggest you...". Boy, that was snotty.

        by Orlando on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 7:19pm

        Obama's election is just the exclamation point to a long trend which helped make his election possible. I came of political age during the Rodney King riots and snarked as my college classmates marched in protest some fifteen miles to the Pittsfield, MA courthouse (as other entrepreneurial classmates sold tee-shirts commemorating the great event). It's hard to imagine any of that happening today. Compare the reaction to Sean Bell's killing to that of Rodney King's beating. Or the O.J. Simpson trial of '08 to the O.J Simpson trial of '94.

        As I said, racism is not dead, and I did not mean to imply that the effects have disappeared either, but perspectives have evolved all around. We have begun to address the effects of racism differently. I don't mean to suggest that there can't be relapses either, especially in response to emotional events like 9/11. But even as we battle racism agaist Arabs, the fight won't have the character of race politics from the past century. The era has passed.

        PS Snot away. I'm not easily offended.


        by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 8:29pm

        Racism decisively lost this election, but lives on.

        However. we're in for at least four years (and probably eight) of nightly TV news beginning with, "Today President Obama ..."

        Much of that reporting will be positive, and by 2016 -- simply by erosion -- the notion that a black leader might be strange and scary will be ancient history. As people embrace their A-A president, barriers will fall for CEOs and heads of accounting.

        I suspect the global war on terror will also wind down. So Muslims won't be objects of fear and suspicion either. I just hope the whole burden doesn't fall on Canadians and Mexicans. That would be a bummer.


        by acanuck on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 2:26am

        Immigrants won't be the next target - trust me on this one, within 5 to 10 years, the issue won't be 'how do we deal with illegal immigration' but 'how can we recruit enough new citizens to make up for our depleted work force'. Tough to see through the current prism of a recession and looming double digit unemployment, but the demographics are soon going to get quite ugly (and economically unsustainable without a renewed focus on immigration). if anything, the long-held bastion of white male power in this country will continue to be threatened, and i wouldn't be surprised if the drumbeat of reverse racism continues to rise.


        by Deadman on Wed, 12/03/2008 - 12:33am

        Smart people will get that, but don't underestimate the power of xenophobia. There are many examples of societies shooting their own feet by persecuting and ejecting productive minorities--Indians in Uganda, Chinese in Malaysia, whites in Zimbabwe, Jews pretty much everywhere. Illegal immigrants already play a big role in our economy, but that doesn't stop the xenophobia here. Europe and Japan suffer more severe labor shortages than the U.S., but the hostility towards immigrants is much higher in these places.


        by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 12/03/2008 - 2:09pm

        I have, as G might call it, a quibble. I think sometimes those of you who live in cities underestimate the conservative nature of the not-cities. It's not a criticism exactly. I used to do it too, when I lived in the city. And I'm still somewhat shocked when I identify someone as a liberal democrat and then find that they have what I would consider to be not-liberal ideas about immigration and the broader topic of race relations. I think it's natural to assume that everyone agrees with your point of view. People on the right are certainly guilty of it (a la Sarah Palin's "real America") but I think we're equally guilty.

        I do believe, as I've said before, that as time marches on, society only gets more liberal. So I think we are on the way toward a country--and even someday a world--where race and culture and religion won't matter except as defining features like eye color. But I don't think we'll be seeing that world in our lifetime. And by the time it gets here, we'll have found sometime else to hate and fear each other for. We're the Sneetches.


        by Orlando on Wed, 12/03/2008 - 6:02pm

        Imagine there's no countries

        It's easy if you try.....

         


        by LisB on Thu, 12/04/2008 - 12:13am

        I was in Los Angeles when those riots were happening. It was scary! While I think that big city police departments and governments and even large corporates have made strides in diversity training to prevent a repeat of Rodney King, I do not imagine that it is outside the realm of possibility for another such beating to take place. There is still racial profiling. And further, there is still overt and subversive racism every where you look. I'm not saying we haven't made progress. And the election of Obama is a giant step forward. But Obama didn't talk about race until he was forced into it, and then he didn't talk about it again. If he had made race an issue in the campaign, do you think we'd be congratulating ourselves right now? I don't. Because I think that discussion about what racism still exists in our society is something that most whites would rather not talk about.

        I'm most heartened by the way I see kids dealing with the issue. Because for the next generation, kids in college and kids in high school now, it does seem to be a non-issue, in terms of who their friends are and what they assume they can achieve in life.

        But there are still barriers that exist in this society for people of color and I hope we keep talking about them and chipping away at them until it truly doesn't matter anymore.


        by Orlando on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 8:50am

        Maybe I'm not being clear. The biggest difference today compared to the Rodney King riots is not in the level of racism in police departments but the reaction to the incendiary incidents by the public--from blacks and whites. That's why I cited Sean Bell and O.J. If another Rodney King were beaten today, I doubt that it would spark the same chain of events. The thresholds are higher, and the flashpoints less sensitive. The "us versus them" mentality, which has characterized race politics on both sides for generations is fading. That doesn't mean that racism is over but that we're dealing with the problem in very different way, particularly, as you say, the next generation.


        by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 9:53am

        I guess I just disagree. I can see reaction to incendiary incidents quickly becoming as incendiary, or more, than past incidents, depending on the circumstances. Anytime riots occur, there has to be an unusual convergence of stimuli. I think that having an African American as president could be a strong counter should those stimuli converge again. But each of them is still possible, separate and together.

        by Orlando on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 11:05am

        When was the last time we had race riots? Remember when a car accident in Crown Heights could cause race riots? When was the last major film or book on race relations? Where are the high profile artists who used to address black anger like Spike Lee and Public Enemy? What happened to provocateurs like Farrakahn or polarizing figures like O.J.? The closest thing we've had to a major public race controversy was Rev. Wright. That controversy felt dated to me, like the socialist crap that McCain tried to pull, an argument from another era. And it faded. The biggest national race controversy in years did not keep the country from electing its first black president.

        If these factors combined with Obama's election and the changes among the new generation you mention don't signal the end of an era in the history of race relations, what would?


        by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 12:46pm

        The last time I remember race riots is in the early 1990s. I think that's the last time I remember Spike Lee movies dealing with racism as well. Coincidentially, the economy sucked then too, only not as bad as it does now. I just don't think it's time to pronounce us healed. You might be right and we might be past that kind of thing forever. But I wouldn't be surprised if it happened again.


        by Orlando on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 3:14pm

        I don't know if "healed" is the right word for what I was trying to capture in this post. More like "changed." But yes, I may be wrong. That's risk of grandly pronouncing the end of an era at the moment of its end rather than midway through the next one.


        by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 3:26pm

        Two things.

        First, I think riots are a weird sort of animal that never really go away. People get pissed off enough, with other factors thrown into the mix, and voila. The purported impetus can be stupid (like rioting because your favorite basketball team lost), opportunistic (rioting and looting after a natural disaster), or borne out of intense oppression where finally the oppressed parties have had enough. So, in the way that you are thinking about race relations and race riots in this country, maybe those days are over. But I think we'll see more rioting over something at some point--I'm not too good at predicting, so I'll be vague and leave the prognosticating to people smarter than me. (Or people like Bill Kristol, who don't seem to care when they look like total morons.)

        Second, I think of eras (and generations) as not really having a beginning or an end. They sort of melt into each other as time marches on. We just like to name them so we can easily write discrete chapters for our history books. Of course, if they are tied to a specific person or a specific event that has a beginning and an end, that's different, i.e., the Bush era (gag).


        by Orlando on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 4:05pm

        Riots have been around since the dawn of cities, and we surely haven't seen the last of them. But there's a specific genre of Amerian race riot that gained prominence in the 60's and was a clear reaction to racism in this country (mirrored most recently in France). They were accompanied by political movements of liberation and empowerment for African-Americans. Those movements have accomplished many, though not all, of their objectives, one of which was the election of a black president. Though it was not marked by a day or a year, the riots and movements had a beginning--there was a time before urban race riots--and they will have an end, though we cannot be certain that they have ended until long after the fact.

        And "era" is of course just a concept that we use to approximate periods of social development, but that approximation serves a purpose. Our history books need chapters so that we can make sense of them. Of course those chapters smooth over the blurry evolution, but that doesn't make them meaningless. What I'm arguing is that today, we have good reason to believe that a broad chapter has ended and that future history books on race relations will break the second half of the 20th century into its own chapter. But that doesn't mean that everyone gets to live happily ever after in the next one.


        by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 5:04pm

        "A riot is an ugly thing ..."


        by Donal on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 5:07pm

        You're categorizing race riots and racial politics as specific to African Americans and I suppose the 2nd half of the 20th century does fit into that narrow definition of race. I'm arguing that we haven't seen the end of civil or political unrest due to racial issues, but racial issues on a broader scale. As we move toward a "minority majority", it could be easy or it could be hard. I'd guess we'll see a little of both, and I'd guess we won't have to wait another 40 years for it to begin.


        by Orlando on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 5:36pm

        Totally agree. My initial claim was that "racial politics as we know it is over." I agree that race consciousness and racial tension will continue in some form or other, though I expect it to me more complex and bound up with class, immigration status, and poverty. Less black-and-white, if you will. Can we be in agreement now?


        by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 8:53pm

        No. I don't agree to be agreeable. It's way too shiny happy fun time around here. You suck.

        :-p


        by Orlando on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 9:15pm

        Obviously you didn't read the terms and conditions. One more :-p out of you, and I will block out everything that you write with a big black [deleted]. I love having admin power.


        by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 9:58pm

        Censorship leads to rioting.

        :-p

        :-p

        :-p

        :-p

        :-p

        :-p

        :-p

        :-p

        :-p

        [deleted] (ed. This is a warning. I'm watching you.)

        (I'm so not afraid of you.)


        by Orlando on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 10:02pm

        5. International relations. China rises. No longer a black ship on the horizon, China is bearing fast on our stern. It will weather the economic storm better than we and edge closer as the world watches in breathless anticipation. But though pessimists will continue to write epitaphs as they once did under Japan's shadow, the race is not over. China has a long way to go, and there will be surges and ebbs on both sides before they pass us, if they pass us. Newly industrial countries, like India and Brazil, will also continue to grow, and a continuum will replace the old dichotomy between rich and poor nations. The U.S. will grow more isolationist as we battle recession and withdraw from Iraq and, eventually, Afghanistan.


        by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 6:45pm

        I think a lot of terrorism will spew out of countries as they slip off the fossil-fueled industrial wagon back into the third world. Pakistan is the current poster child. but Indonesia is also in some trouble as they now must import their oil. Mexico and Yemen are due to run out in a few years.


        by Donal on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 9:37pm

        China and the U.S. now find themselves in a symbiotic relationship. For the next few decades at least, China can't afford to let America fail. So they'll keep buying your bonds, and maybe even moderate their monetary policy.

        One obvious conclusion: China and the U.S. are too intertwined ever to go to war. That's a comforting thought.

        As for Pakistan and Indonesia, the need to wind up the GWOT has never been clearer. Fastest way is to kill bin Laden and say, "There, we're done." 'Cause the longer it goes on, the more it gets spun as a western war against Islam.

        An Israeli-Palestinian deal would sure help.


        by acanuck on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 2:36am

        I agree but worry that the terrorists won't let us wind it up so easily, whether or not we kill bin Laden (if he's even still alive).


        by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 10:02am

        Have your children learn Mandarin. There will be fits and starts along the way but at some point China will be THE world's superpower. My only hope is they are a democratic country by the time they get there (hopefully through a bloodless revolution)


        by Deadman on Wed, 12/03/2008 - 12:34am

        6. Urban planning. Collapsed real estate values and increasing energies prices will halt the growth of the exurbs. Urban growth will slow with the recession, but population will continue to swell in most metropolitan areas because of immigration and migration by young people from rural areas where jobs dwindle dramatically in the recession.


        by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 6:46pm

        So hard to predict, and it is too, too tempting to over-generalize. Many American exurbs have already come to a screeching halt, but those well-served by transit, like much of Connecticut, will survive. I think some exurbs may become the province of the well-to-do, the retired and their grandchildren as working parents crowd into cities to work - sending money back out to the burbs. Hell, this is what I do now.

        I think people will leave, and are already leaving the industrial hinterlands, as I have, but depending on what happens, some may go back or go to rural areas to farm. I think the cities will get more crowded and expensive and that ring cities will cluster around existing transit system stops. City governments will be pressured to relax zoning and planning codes to allow very dense, very profitable slums.


        by Donal on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 9:11pm

        Thanks for the clarification. I confess to overgeneralizing.


        by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 10:22am

        On The Oil Drum:Local, Glenn addresses what people want in housing here.


        by Donal on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 10:38am

        7. Fashion. The recession marks the end of dumpster-chic. People without money will dress as if they have it instead of people with money dressing as they if they don't.


        by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 6:47pm

        8. Music. We're due for another round of angry thrash and escapist dance music, which will flourish in the recession. The ailing music industry will shudder and splinter as niche labels outpace the majors.


        by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 6:47pm

        9. Art. Postmodern art has stopped generating new and engaging ideas. (See my review of the Guggenheim's latest exhibition.) As the tide ebbs, look for renewed interest in classical art forms addressing contemporary topics.


        by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 6:50pm

        10. Literature. In literature, self-conscious irony has been played out, and the recession will engender an earnesty revolution.


        by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 6:50pm

        We already see green, and green-washing, as the beginning of a certain earnestness in advertising. I think we'll have an online literature and a separate broadcast/published literature that will become ever more separate.


        by Donal on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 10:19am

        11. Entertainment. Political comedy will go quiet for a time, and the Daily Show / Colbert Report will face falling ratings. (Once the sheriff has the run the outlaws out of town, there's little left for him to do.) I don't watch much T.V., and I'm uncharacteristically at a loss for what to say about cinematic trends, so I look to readers for commentary on these subjects.


        by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 6:51pm

        12. News Media. Small town newspapers will wither. Large newspapers and magazines will lose circulation and consolidate. Wise-ass blogs will flourish. Dagblog is the future.


        by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 6:52pm

        Dagblog is the future for the affluent. I think small town newspapers, TV and radio will rebound and serve those who can no longer afford cable tv and internet bills.

        Local TV is cutting back on highly-paid anchors. We had a very recognizable fellow let go from an Altoona radio station recently.


        by Donal on Tue, 12/02/2008 - 6:01pm

        Wrong, Genghis. Small-town newspapers are already established as niche publications and will do much better than big-city, everything-to-everyone dailies -- which as you predict will lose circulation. More and more big dailies will run the same banal wire-sevice report rather than do original reporting.

        But big city or small, good journalists will find outlets in blogs, television and print (newspaper or magazine) footholds. No-one will have much job security working for a single full-time publication. But at times in the past, I've made a passable living freelancing for, say, three employers at a time. 

        Thanks to the web, the demand for good journalism has soared. But I emphasize, GOOD journalism. The web -- and media layoffs -- have made crappy journalism far easier to come by than ever before.

        Finally, you're right about wise-asses. Dagblog is indeed the future.


        by acanuck on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 3:02am

        I accept the correction


        by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 10:21am

        Latest Comments