Oh Don't Worry There Is Room for Both

The cartoons in the paper, along with the sports and a little news to wash it all down as often is the case. And those checking out Paltrow are doing just that and her site could just have been pictures I'm sure as its reminds me much of a fan club with a few helpful hints for its fan members along with receipes from someone very sweet I'm sure.

Future of Journalism

A far better example than that given by Vanessa Richmond is the blog kept by Mark Bittman on the NY Times web site [see: http://bitten.blogs.nytimes.com/]. It has its own following, not huge, but steady. It complements Bittman's regular contributions on the NYT web site. He writes interesting stuff and creates a tangible and long-lasting connection with his readers.

That example, but it is just one, is the future of journalism.

Springtime

Re: As the Globe's Lynn Crosbie said, "Goop is, ultimately, a nice little forum for ideas about self-improvement, ideas that are rooted in harmless acquisitiveness, simple playfulness and an exceptionally fragile sense of the mind and soul. It is this fragility that makes Goop (its name is, admittedly, dreadful) hard to dislike, as it puts forward such tentative feelers toward art and literature, spirituality and the dream of a whole, harmonious life."

Well, here's the professional writer at work--the kind of mind well wrought/rot from compromise, ready-full of condescention. Sensing an advance of the amateur and genuine, her first move is to belittle and contain--and so we get talk of "ultimately, a nice little forum," of an effort "whose fragility" "makes [it] [. . .] hard to dislike," that oh so charmingly aspires to epic reach. Vanessa evidences a better taste for it (Will Vanessa ever stop seeming the castle-caught princess, who longs to embrace the commons but is afraid to seem, common), but she still introduces Goop in a way the Globe's Lynn Crosbie would approve--i.e., "It's clearly well-meaning," and suggests that Goop's success might mean that "content [really] is [no longer] king."

Vanessa is right to suggest this isn't just talk about a sweet, harmless effort, but wrong to once again ultimately direct us to affect-less terminology academics offer in their demeaning assessments of the whys of human behavior. And it may not be all about the lure of the celebrity. Rather, though focussed on/through those most public/prevalent, it may just be mostly about the genuine. And if people are now chancing a turn in this direction (which is what I felt in both Paltrow and Phoenix's "latest"), then has this last long period of massive self-censored professional writing, been mostly about surrecting the predictable--about making nice stepping stones to shore up a world of well-turned shoes? Has what made you professional, baited you into suppression, "learned you" into suspicion, all along been more about gentrified contentment and containment than about true content?

May it be true that such unsure sprouts of the sweet and earnest, foretell a confident and collective, ROMANTIC full-blossoming.

Media: Architects of their own demise

The freedom of choice inherent in the internet (so far, at least) undermines any woe-is-me sympathy for big media.

Big media is struggling because, many years ago, big media realised that by limiting choice (aka centralising ownership) they could increase profits. The result, in the heydays of cutbacks, 'thinning', and 'downsizing', was--and is--a decrease in the quality of the journalism.

This is not to suggest a golden era of journalism--there never was one (just as there wasn't in film, if you look at all the forgotten--thankfully--films of that era). Yellow journalism was not a bad apple it was the model (we're all rubber-neckers in the end). Rather, I would suggest that what the internet offers is not just more opportunities for average people (and the not so average in Paltrow's case) to vent or display the prowess that editors more concerned with bottom-line would reject, but also a wider audience for alternative and guerilla media(read: unpopular to the rich and powerful, please excuse any Marxists overtones, they are unintentional).

Big media has--and is (internet throttling)--interfering with the concept of 'public commons' as they always have simply because it interferes with their ability to reap a profit, and it is a profit at our expense. It is a farce when the "writing" of Mark Steyn and MacLean's is defended under the guise of freedom of speech. Of course it IS an issue of free speech, but it is embarassing when it is free speech for profit or, in Steyn's case, bad writing promoting narrow-minded ideas.

The public commons IS free speech in that concepts' spirit AND letter (as opposed to MacLean's just to the letter). Want more proof? As Mordechai Brimberg!

A deep, deep irony rests in that fact that Adam Smith's original concept of 'supply and demand' was being corrupted by big media (among others, of course) and is now, through the internet, being returned to its original spirit as determined by us the consumer, and the consumer in the public commons.

This isn't a threat its a restoration of balance!

In essence, big media is slipping on theirown banana peel...forgive me if I chuckle...

Good article

The Tyee: journalism or starfucking

If anything is bad journalism, it's this article. Your need to comment on and hate this blog is completely unnecessary, and not journalism. This is the reason big media is failing, because they stopped reporting news and lost all credibility. Where does this tall poppy syndrome come from? Why does the media navel-gaze about itself constantly? Write about real news. Go attend the Braidwood Inquiry or something. And how's it feel to be hated on? I dare you to defend the journalistic integrity of this article.

Way to Rock the Boat, Vanessa

Paltrow writes a blog and the corporate and financial elites go nuts. Ms. Redmond writes favorably about Ms. Paltrow's blog, and certain Tyee readers go nuts.

Hmmm, what does this tell us? Actually, quite a lot. The phenomenon of both events is well studied in the field known as sociology, which remains the cutting edge of intellectual analysis and thought. And for good reason. It's scholars seek to critique what ACTUALLY influences societal trends to happen.

Authors such as Naomi Klein, Edward Herman, Noam Chomosky, Ben Bagdikian, Marc Edge and others have significantly educated millions of us about how societal elements operate. And once we understand how the 'template' works, each of us can in turn apply this analysis to almost any event involving powerful entities for better understanding.

Speaking of which, Paltrow and/or ANY celebrity are NOT permitted to enter the realm of written discourse. Particularly female celebrties. It is overstepping their bounds and they will face significant 'flak'. It they persist, they will incur even more wrath and ultimately be black listed. It's how things work. I salute Ms. Paltrow's courage in taking this step, and only time will tell whether she can resist her critics.

As for Ms. Redmond, one sees a similar reaction to her work on the Tyee. Flamers and trolls who normally stick to undermining independent political critiques, lash out at her columns. Why? Likely the combination of being female (easier to attack females in pubic as per their perceived lack of power (which ties into the bullying nature of those with more power)) coupled with her courage in writing about non-male dominated topics.

Which is exactly why I love the Tyee. Keep rocking that boat. It will take continued courage and character for all of you, but we're standing behind you 1000%.

Where's the love?

Nice one, Ms. Richmond!

As a follower of many blogs, and a ‘Goop’ subscriber (I have to admit, I signed up only out of curiosity), I cannot help but agree with you: this woman has a lot of haters gunning for her to fail. Why all the hatred?

Nobody can honestly say they’re getting offended here. It’s not like Ms. Paltrow is espousing the virtues of fire cupping or encouraging her readers to try out the latest in salt-water, vanilla-scented enemas. And while her list of favourite books was a major yawn, her chosen topics are well-intentioned, innocuous, and clearly very accessible to her many subscribers.

She chooses to write about things personal to her, even if it’s just a helpful household tip, a good recipe (her Maple Dijon roasted veggies are delicious), or a recommendation for a restaurant in Paris. Sure, I can’t even begin to imagine what her idea of an affordable restaurant is, but let’s face it; Gwyneth is privy to a lifestyle many of us would covet. She has access to the best and brightest of everything. She may not be the most proficient of writers, but when it comes to the written word (or cyber word), I’ll take Ms. Paltrow over Madonna any day.

Echos of Genius and Fluff

I have to echo wcullen here. I watch with barely contained glee at the ever more rapid downfall of Big Media. It is a source of information so thoroughly and corruptly corporate that even the occasional diamond chips of excellence it churns out aren't worth having to put up with the putrid mess of its advertorial defecations.

What will happen? Well the world won't end, or at least not from the death of big media. Exactly what the shakeout will be in how information gets presented accurately and elegantly is difficult to predict. The forces of consolidation are busily at work trying to figure out new monopoly strategies, of which internet traffic shaping is one. But for the time being we get a dogs breakfast, not all of it bad.

Where Goop and its like are concerned, it is just an example of the appeal of ephemera, consumer culture, celebrity and beauty. It pushes a lot more of our evolutionarily designed buttons than Vanessa mentioned. Fickle attention will always be drawn to it. Goop's real core of support will most likely comprise a group Paltrow will hire bodyguards to protect her from.

And to be honest it's not something we really need to be worried about. There's nothing wrong with following Paltrow as she swims in her shallow pool. Simple pleasures are part of what makes life grand.

That said, I think it's worthwhile to raise questions of class and not just crass. Opening the eyes of the rich and ignorant has some utility. Far too often people carry their ignorance around with them like a handbag sized pooch, exclaiming at its cuteness while it pisses on someone else's leg.

But it's also important to not get carried away in anger. I think a lot of the critique directed toward Paltrow is generated by professional fear. Specifically, a fear of an inability to make a living as a professional communicator. Perhaps in the sphere of ephemera it will be. But who really needs to be a genius to write advertorial? Paltrow's success isn't based on genius or creativity. It's based on luck.

Instead of worrying about the death of big media, the really good communicators out there should be looking at it as an opportunity to deal with meaty content. Something they can really sink their creative chops into. Quality outs. There will always be a place for it. It might not make you gazillions, but if all you're in it for is money and fame... well in that case it's far better to be lucky, like Gwyneth, than to be a genius. As genius, and the striving to reach it, is really its own reward.

Goop? Snot!

Not goop, but snot. LOL!

What's the fuss?

I happened on Goop a few weeks ago.It comes across as a celebrity trying to share a bit of her life with her fans. It does not come across as the vanguard of a Martha Stewart style empire. What about Victoria Beckham (Posh Spice) and her blog website? Considering how widely reviled she is by gossip and entertainment writers, why is her blog not a better target?

I heard Burton Cummings interviewed on CBC earlier this year and he talked about how the internet and e-mail and blogs have completely changed how he connects with his fans. Is that so bad?

If you don't like it, don't look at it. But the vitriol? Grow up and find something REAL to beef about. Let Gwyneth go about her life and dole out a few hundred words every week.

At least Gwyneth actually puts out some content on a regular basis, ghost-written or not. I use canada.com as a home page and was constantly seeing ads for Ashley Simpson's blog. You know the whole bit, young rock star now a mother. So, I look at it and she had not posted anything in over two months. Either have a blog or don't, but why was MySpace spending all this money to advertise a dead blog?