According to inside sources, a group of magazine publishers are planning the construction of a joint online newsstand. Such magazines include Time Inc. and Conde Nast, and the magazines will be created in different digital formats.
Though no official deals have been signed, it is rumored that Time, Conde Nast, Meredith, and Hearst will all be equity partners in the new company, which will run the online newsstand, and has been called the "iTunes for magazines."
The hope is that these publishing houses will be able to obtain some control over digital readers, since most of their print circulations are struggling in sales.
The point is that this new magazine company would make it easy to buy print and electronic copies of magazines like Sports Illustrated, Esquire, The New Yorker, and Better Home and Gardens from just one website. With this, you will be able to view the magazine on iPhones, BlackBerrys, ebook readers, and other platforms.
I am not very surprised that now magazine publishers are looking to expand to the digital marketplace; they're not dumb. While I think that this is a very interesting concept and definitely has promise of being successful, I don't like it. I know it sounds cliche and oldfashioned, but I truly enjoy flipping through the pages of my magazine, just like I prefer to turn the pages of my newspaper. I guess for people who are on the go, this will be a more convenient option, but I think I will always prefer to stop at a stand and buy a magazine to read on the train on my way to work.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Undercover Reporting
A London filmmaker decided to turn the tables on those preying journalists who live to victimize celebrities in order to get the scoop for tabloids.
Many a celebrity have been duped by such journalists, remember the Martin Bashir documentary on a naïve Michael Jackson? Well, Chris Atkins, a London based filmmaker, has decided to go undercover to document ‘dubious reporting methods’ of those on the hunt of stories for celebrity tabloids.
Atkins did this by arranging meetings with many Fleet Street papers, luring them with promises of containing revealing information about television stars’ visits to private medical clinics. His plan worked, many reporters excited about the prospect of obtaining headlines that included the names of celebrities and such words as facelift or Botox, agreed to meet and speak with Atkins.
With these stealthily filmed clips from the meetings, Atkins put together a Michael Moore-esque documentary, entitled “Star-suckers,” which targets society’s growing obsession with celebrities and fame, and what he believes to be its cynical manipulation by the big media companies. Atkins said, “Media companies are in dire straits, and the only thing they have left is celebrity. They have discovered that this is an incredibly potent tool for selling.”
None of the reporters agreed to buy any of Atkin’s ‘information,’ but Atkins was able to plant many fake stories in tabloids by calling them with tips. Also, British tabloids aren’t the only target of “Star-suckers,” the documentary also addresses crazed American parents who push their kids into the spotlight, plus other European TV personalities who go into politics and ‘Irish rock stars who front global anti-poverty campaigns.’
Atkins also pointed out that although fascination with celebrity has existed for a long time, it is becoming more and more sinister as technology and greedy media companies combine to turn out greater excess almost daily.
While I totally agree with Atkins and am glad that someone has put together some sort of documentation on this topic, I must admit that I am guilty of the celebrity fascination. I am much better now, I have been sober for 5 months now (from buying tabloid magazines that is (I actually don’t know how long it’s been, I’m joking)), but I was once nearly unable to leave the checkout aisle without buying one! But in all seriousness, this is an illness that has become an epidemic in our society, because it has come to excess. For example, my stepmom receives OK, Star, People, and Us Weekly in the mail, every week! That’s sick, and a waste of money, and I know she’s not the only one.
I am a bit worried, though; I have a road trip coming up and am not sure I’ll be able to resist the temptation of buying entertainment that will last for hours on the road!
Many a celebrity have been duped by such journalists, remember the Martin Bashir documentary on a naïve Michael Jackson? Well, Chris Atkins, a London based filmmaker, has decided to go undercover to document ‘dubious reporting methods’ of those on the hunt of stories for celebrity tabloids.
Atkins did this by arranging meetings with many Fleet Street papers, luring them with promises of containing revealing information about television stars’ visits to private medical clinics. His plan worked, many reporters excited about the prospect of obtaining headlines that included the names of celebrities and such words as facelift or Botox, agreed to meet and speak with Atkins.
With these stealthily filmed clips from the meetings, Atkins put together a Michael Moore-esque documentary, entitled “Star-suckers,” which targets society’s growing obsession with celebrities and fame, and what he believes to be its cynical manipulation by the big media companies. Atkins said, “Media companies are in dire straits, and the only thing they have left is celebrity. They have discovered that this is an incredibly potent tool for selling.”
None of the reporters agreed to buy any of Atkin’s ‘information,’ but Atkins was able to plant many fake stories in tabloids by calling them with tips. Also, British tabloids aren’t the only target of “Star-suckers,” the documentary also addresses crazed American parents who push their kids into the spotlight, plus other European TV personalities who go into politics and ‘Irish rock stars who front global anti-poverty campaigns.’
Atkins also pointed out that although fascination with celebrity has existed for a long time, it is becoming more and more sinister as technology and greedy media companies combine to turn out greater excess almost daily.
While I totally agree with Atkins and am glad that someone has put together some sort of documentation on this topic, I must admit that I am guilty of the celebrity fascination. I am much better now, I have been sober for 5 months now (from buying tabloid magazines that is (I actually don’t know how long it’s been, I’m joking)), but I was once nearly unable to leave the checkout aisle without buying one! But in all seriousness, this is an illness that has become an epidemic in our society, because it has come to excess. For example, my stepmom receives OK, Star, People, and Us Weekly in the mail, every week! That’s sick, and a waste of money, and I know she’s not the only one.
I am a bit worried, though; I have a road trip coming up and am not sure I’ll be able to resist the temptation of buying entertainment that will last for hours on the road!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Women in late night: Good for something, but not for writing
A recent article in The New York Times discussed the lack of women writers in late night television.
This may be considered somewhat surprising considering the dominant female presence in many other aspects of TV; more women watch television than men; in prime time and daytime, many females have had huge success as producers and writers; and in January, women will hold two of three seats as anchors of network evening newscasts. In spite of it all though, there have been very few women to break the barrier into late night writing rooms, even though women make up a larger percentage of the audiences than men do.
There are no female writers on the new “The Jay Leno Show,” or on “Late Show with David Letterman” or “The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien,” yet Leno’s audience is more than 53%, Letterman’s 55%, and O’Brien’s also over half.
This fact was highlighted by Letterman’s confessions of having sexual relations with many of his staff members. Nell Scovell, a former female writer for Letterman, spoke about late night writing positions for females, based on her experiences, noting that the environment while working for Letterman was ‘hostile,’ including his relationships with female staff members. She said in an e-mail message, “Writing for late-night talk shows is a great entry-level TV job, and if you deny women that opportunity it reduces the chance for them to pursue careers in comedy.”
Steve Bodow, head writer for “The Daily Show,” said that their show hired two female writers in September, saying they had to ‘shake the trees a little’ to do so, but that they wanted to get their different perspective, which I agree with and am somewhat surprised that more shows have not wanted to incorporate as well.
An argument is that as long as the hosts remain male, so will the writers, because you are writing for that one person’s personality, which makes sense, but I think a female’s view would only add to the humor of these men.
I watch these shows occasionally, not regularly, and I think that the lack of female influence is apparent, although I still enjoy the shows and the humor, with or without female writers. It is sort of discouraging to me though, as comedic writing is something, quite possibly the thing, I want to do.
This may be considered somewhat surprising considering the dominant female presence in many other aspects of TV; more women watch television than men; in prime time and daytime, many females have had huge success as producers and writers; and in January, women will hold two of three seats as anchors of network evening newscasts. In spite of it all though, there have been very few women to break the barrier into late night writing rooms, even though women make up a larger percentage of the audiences than men do.
There are no female writers on the new “The Jay Leno Show,” or on “Late Show with David Letterman” or “The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien,” yet Leno’s audience is more than 53%, Letterman’s 55%, and O’Brien’s also over half.
This fact was highlighted by Letterman’s confessions of having sexual relations with many of his staff members. Nell Scovell, a former female writer for Letterman, spoke about late night writing positions for females, based on her experiences, noting that the environment while working for Letterman was ‘hostile,’ including his relationships with female staff members. She said in an e-mail message, “Writing for late-night talk shows is a great entry-level TV job, and if you deny women that opportunity it reduces the chance for them to pursue careers in comedy.”
Steve Bodow, head writer for “The Daily Show,” said that their show hired two female writers in September, saying they had to ‘shake the trees a little’ to do so, but that they wanted to get their different perspective, which I agree with and am somewhat surprised that more shows have not wanted to incorporate as well.
An argument is that as long as the hosts remain male, so will the writers, because you are writing for that one person’s personality, which makes sense, but I think a female’s view would only add to the humor of these men.
I watch these shows occasionally, not regularly, and I think that the lack of female influence is apparent, although I still enjoy the shows and the humor, with or without female writers. It is sort of discouraging to me though, as comedic writing is something, quite possibly the thing, I want to do.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Berenstain Bears
The next stop for the beloved Berenstain Bears is the big screen. Shawn Levy, who is director of the Night at the Museum movies, has signed on to produce film version of the The Berenstain Bears books. Levy is planning on this being a comedy with both live action and computer animation.
These popular characters were first published by creators Jan and Stan Berenstain in 1962’s “The Big Honey Hunt,” and they have remained popular ever since. Levy says that to maintain the level of popularity that these books have is a formidable achievement, and they must have something special in their DNA to have endured this long. He is looking forward to begin working on the film.
Levy says he wants the film to stay true to the original story and to incorporate some details from the more popular books in the series. He also said he will be sure that the film is witty, but never sarcastic, comparing it to Will Ferrell’s Elf, a movie that had a sweet, sincere hero who conflicted with his more mocking environment. Ultimately, they want to stay true to the Berenstain’s origins as to not disappoint the generations of families who have enjoyed them. There are hopes that the screenplay will be completed by late next year.
I thought this was kind of cool; when I saw the picture of the Berenstain Bears on the website it immediately brought back memories from being a kid and reading those books, and even better, watching the movies. I vividly remember enjoying the books and cartoons thoroughly, and hopefully this film will continue the legacy and keep the bears pertinent to children today. I only hope that if the film does not live up to the books, it doesn’t damage what has proven to pass the test of time.
These popular characters were first published by creators Jan and Stan Berenstain in 1962’s “The Big Honey Hunt,” and they have remained popular ever since. Levy says that to maintain the level of popularity that these books have is a formidable achievement, and they must have something special in their DNA to have endured this long. He is looking forward to begin working on the film.
Levy says he wants the film to stay true to the original story and to incorporate some details from the more popular books in the series. He also said he will be sure that the film is witty, but never sarcastic, comparing it to Will Ferrell’s Elf, a movie that had a sweet, sincere hero who conflicted with his more mocking environment. Ultimately, they want to stay true to the Berenstain’s origins as to not disappoint the generations of families who have enjoyed them. There are hopes that the screenplay will be completed by late next year.
I thought this was kind of cool; when I saw the picture of the Berenstain Bears on the website it immediately brought back memories from being a kid and reading those books, and even better, watching the movies. I vividly remember enjoying the books and cartoons thoroughly, and hopefully this film will continue the legacy and keep the bears pertinent to children today. I only hope that if the film does not live up to the books, it doesn’t damage what has proven to pass the test of time.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Will free papers be able to save deteriorating sales?
Struggling newspaper sales have been a topic of conversation all over the world, and that includes France, but the French approach to saving this diminishing market is much different from that of others.
Eric Pfanner, of the New York Times, wrote about France’s plan to win back newspaper subscriptions and revenue; to give away newspapers in an attempt to gain regular consumers. This plan, called “My Free Newspaper,” offers 18 to 24-year-olds a free, yearlong subscription to a newspaper of their choice, with hopes that they will then continue to buy and read the newspapers when that year ends.
This may seem like a drastic measure, but France is facing drastic circumstances, even in comparison to the dwindling sales everywhere else; on a per-capita basis, only about half as many papers are sold in France then are in Germany and Britain, according to the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers in Paris.
France’s newspapers, much like elsewhere, are in crisis mode due to an advertising slump and readers’ movement to the internet for news sources, but customers are especially low among young people. A government study found that in 2007, only 10 percent of people aged 15 to 24 are reading a paid-for newspaper daily, which is only half of what that number was 10 years ago.
This certainly sounds like an innovative idea to me, but I had many questions upon reading the first paragraph, like, how will they pay for this, because if this doesn’t turn out customers after the year ends like they are hoping it will, how will they make up for what sounds like a pretty significant loss? The article said that the costs of the project will be shared by the government and the newspapers, with the government contributing $22.5 million over three years, which will certainly help.
Another problem that I found with the idea is that I would imagine that many of the people that will subscribe to this free year’s worth of newspapers are people that already pay to read papers daily, so, essentially, the newspapers might simply maintain consumers, rather than gain consumers. In response to that, the article said that over 30,000 people have already signed up for the free subscriptions, so let’s hope that these people keep their subscription when it comes time to pay for it.
This certainly sounds very interesting, but hopefully it will prove to be a success, more importantly. I receive a newspaper daily, and I enjoy reading it, and I can only hope that sales will increase so we don’t have to face possibly losing such a long-standing tradition.
Eric Pfanner, of the New York Times, wrote about France’s plan to win back newspaper subscriptions and revenue; to give away newspapers in an attempt to gain regular consumers. This plan, called “My Free Newspaper,” offers 18 to 24-year-olds a free, yearlong subscription to a newspaper of their choice, with hopes that they will then continue to buy and read the newspapers when that year ends.
This may seem like a drastic measure, but France is facing drastic circumstances, even in comparison to the dwindling sales everywhere else; on a per-capita basis, only about half as many papers are sold in France then are in Germany and Britain, according to the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers in Paris.
France’s newspapers, much like elsewhere, are in crisis mode due to an advertising slump and readers’ movement to the internet for news sources, but customers are especially low among young people. A government study found that in 2007, only 10 percent of people aged 15 to 24 are reading a paid-for newspaper daily, which is only half of what that number was 10 years ago.
This certainly sounds like an innovative idea to me, but I had many questions upon reading the first paragraph, like, how will they pay for this, because if this doesn’t turn out customers after the year ends like they are hoping it will, how will they make up for what sounds like a pretty significant loss? The article said that the costs of the project will be shared by the government and the newspapers, with the government contributing $22.5 million over three years, which will certainly help.
Another problem that I found with the idea is that I would imagine that many of the people that will subscribe to this free year’s worth of newspapers are people that already pay to read papers daily, so, essentially, the newspapers might simply maintain consumers, rather than gain consumers. In response to that, the article said that over 30,000 people have already signed up for the free subscriptions, so let’s hope that these people keep their subscription when it comes time to pay for it.
This certainly sounds very interesting, but hopefully it will prove to be a success, more importantly. I receive a newspaper daily, and I enjoy reading it, and I can only hope that sales will increase so we don’t have to face possibly losing such a long-standing tradition.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Oreos: Milks favorite cookie
Craig Wilson knows the key to happiness in life. And it may not be what you would expect.
In his recent article, Wilson talks about the Dalai Lama and his book, “The Art of Happiness: A Handbook for Living.” Although the book was written ten years ago, it is being reissued this month, though that’s not surprising considering it sold millions, was on the best-seller list for two years, and was translated into 50 languages.
The Dalai Lama has also written a sequel, “The Art of Happiness in a Troubled World.” This is surely a book I should put on my buy list. His message is simple, something anyone can achieve; happiness is something that can be achieved by daily practice and discipline. Happiness is determined more by one’s state of mind than external events.
Although I have not yet mastered the art of being happy, or really come close for that matter, I have certainly learned that happiness IS a state of mind. Surely what goes on around you will have an effect on you, but you must find a way to not let your state of mind reflect whatever craziness is surrounding you.
Wilson, and the Dalai Lama, says that the whole purpose of life is to achieve happiness. According to the Dalai Lama, our money, our mates (or lack thereof), our physical appearance, none of this has anything to do with our ability to be happy. We are born with everything we need to be happy. Wilson goes on to say that most of us don’t buy this, otherwise we wouldn’t be at the gym, mall, or local bar looking to attain happiness in superficial things. This couldn’t be more true, but that’s our society, and I have a difficult time imagining a drastic change anytime soon.
As much as I want to be happy, I don’t think I will be if I don’t run at least 4 times a week.
Though this article wasn’t the best to stimulate an argument, it was very interesting and entertaining. Maybe I enjoyed it so much because it really hit home, especially the title, “The final word: Cookies and milk make a happy combination.” Wilson says Oreo cookies make him very happy; he can eat an entire sleeve in record time. I too am a strong believer that Oreos ARE milk’s favorite cookie. I eat cookies and milk pretty much every night before I go to bed. I guess that’s why I feel the need to go to the gym every day of the week. It’s a vicious cycle.
In his recent article, Wilson talks about the Dalai Lama and his book, “The Art of Happiness: A Handbook for Living.” Although the book was written ten years ago, it is being reissued this month, though that’s not surprising considering it sold millions, was on the best-seller list for two years, and was translated into 50 languages.
The Dalai Lama has also written a sequel, “The Art of Happiness in a Troubled World.” This is surely a book I should put on my buy list. His message is simple, something anyone can achieve; happiness is something that can be achieved by daily practice and discipline. Happiness is determined more by one’s state of mind than external events.
Although I have not yet mastered the art of being happy, or really come close for that matter, I have certainly learned that happiness IS a state of mind. Surely what goes on around you will have an effect on you, but you must find a way to not let your state of mind reflect whatever craziness is surrounding you.
Wilson, and the Dalai Lama, says that the whole purpose of life is to achieve happiness. According to the Dalai Lama, our money, our mates (or lack thereof), our physical appearance, none of this has anything to do with our ability to be happy. We are born with everything we need to be happy. Wilson goes on to say that most of us don’t buy this, otherwise we wouldn’t be at the gym, mall, or local bar looking to attain happiness in superficial things. This couldn’t be more true, but that’s our society, and I have a difficult time imagining a drastic change anytime soon.
As much as I want to be happy, I don’t think I will be if I don’t run at least 4 times a week.
Though this article wasn’t the best to stimulate an argument, it was very interesting and entertaining. Maybe I enjoyed it so much because it really hit home, especially the title, “The final word: Cookies and milk make a happy combination.” Wilson says Oreo cookies make him very happy; he can eat an entire sleeve in record time. I too am a strong believer that Oreos ARE milk’s favorite cookie. I eat cookies and milk pretty much every night before I go to bed. I guess that’s why I feel the need to go to the gym every day of the week. It’s a vicious cycle.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Rush to Judgement
Rush Limbaugh’s bid to buy part of the St. Louis Rams has stirred lots of controversy and brought about lots of opinions, and now the Reverend Al Sharpton has joined the mix.
Sharpton sent a letter to NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, urging him to reject Limbaugh’s bid, he also asked for a meeting with Goodell. The letter basically said that the NFL should reject the bid because Limbaugh would be bad for the league.
Goodell was in Boston attending an owner’s meeting when the letter arrived and will respond to it upon his return, league spokesman Greg Aiello, but frankly, I don’t understand why he would take the time to respond.
There have also been several former and current NFL players speaking out against Limbaugh, many saying that they would refuse to play for a team that Limbaugh owned. Roman Oben, a retired NFL player had this to say, “The biggest fear that I share, and a lot of people share with me, is that you just don’t want a guy with these extreme views, who has made a living off those views, getting in the ear of upper management and ownership to create some of these policies.”
What policies? What policies are speaking about, Mr. Oben? The NFL already has a code of conduct and holds their players to high standards, so what policies are you talking about that Limbaugh’s political views could possibly affect?
Also, those players that say they would refuse to play for a team that Limbaugh owned are full of crap. Their job is to play football, if Limbaugh was offering you more money than another owner, you’re telling me that you wouldn’t go to his team? NO. You would.
And as far as politics goes and other league owners, the majority of the owners are conservative, like Limbaugh, and we don’t know them like we know Limbaugh, but if we did, I’m sure there would be some secrets revealed that would be less than pleasing, because people in their position don’t get there without stepping on some people along the way.
My biggest problem with this article, though, is the fact that Sharpton is writing a letter to Goodell and requesting a meeting with him. Why should Goodell even take into consideration what Sharpton has to say? And Sharpton says that Limbaugh will be bad for the league, but we don’t even know who most of the league’s owners are, because they really don’t have that much of an effect on the league. They sign the checks.
It just really bothers me that Sharpton is speaking out against Limbaugh. It’s a free country, Limbaugh has worked himself to a position where he can buy an NFL team, if he wants to, he should at least be fairly considered. What pull does Sharpton have with the NFL? Because I don’t think he should have any.
Sharpton sent a letter to NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, urging him to reject Limbaugh’s bid, he also asked for a meeting with Goodell. The letter basically said that the NFL should reject the bid because Limbaugh would be bad for the league.
Goodell was in Boston attending an owner’s meeting when the letter arrived and will respond to it upon his return, league spokesman Greg Aiello, but frankly, I don’t understand why he would take the time to respond.
There have also been several former and current NFL players speaking out against Limbaugh, many saying that they would refuse to play for a team that Limbaugh owned. Roman Oben, a retired NFL player had this to say, “The biggest fear that I share, and a lot of people share with me, is that you just don’t want a guy with these extreme views, who has made a living off those views, getting in the ear of upper management and ownership to create some of these policies.”
What policies? What policies are speaking about, Mr. Oben? The NFL already has a code of conduct and holds their players to high standards, so what policies are you talking about that Limbaugh’s political views could possibly affect?
Also, those players that say they would refuse to play for a team that Limbaugh owned are full of crap. Their job is to play football, if Limbaugh was offering you more money than another owner, you’re telling me that you wouldn’t go to his team? NO. You would.
And as far as politics goes and other league owners, the majority of the owners are conservative, like Limbaugh, and we don’t know them like we know Limbaugh, but if we did, I’m sure there would be some secrets revealed that would be less than pleasing, because people in their position don’t get there without stepping on some people along the way.
My biggest problem with this article, though, is the fact that Sharpton is writing a letter to Goodell and requesting a meeting with him. Why should Goodell even take into consideration what Sharpton has to say? And Sharpton says that Limbaugh will be bad for the league, but we don’t even know who most of the league’s owners are, because they really don’t have that much of an effect on the league. They sign the checks.
It just really bothers me that Sharpton is speaking out against Limbaugh. It’s a free country, Limbaugh has worked himself to a position where he can buy an NFL team, if he wants to, he should at least be fairly considered. What pull does Sharpton have with the NFL? Because I don’t think he should have any.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)