 |
| My kind of town, Luxembourg is ... |
My previous column on news anchors and news media in general brought a surprisingly large on-line response in terms of page views. Apparently my opinions are quite well-received in Luxembourg. So in part thanks to those kind people who after all put the lux in Benelux, I’m going to expand on that column. There has been so much debate on the future (if any) of news media that it seems wrong to not fully flesh out my opinions. I’ve been writing a television column for eleven years, so my thoughts have been fully nurtured and evolved; and besides, someone might actually agree with me. maybe even someone with the power to do something about it.
The one point that media executives should rest easiest about is the one that they most worry about. Extinction. Will the internet replace newspapers, magazines, television, radio, movies and pretty much every other form of communication other than the note passed to Sally Curlicue by Jimmy Jeroboam in Grade Three written in invisible ink. Oh wait, Jimmy probably just texts her anyway, so scratch that.
But - I don’t believe that the internet will totally replace print. I have two good reasons for that assumption - the livelier one instinctive, the drier based on historical evidence. Let’s start off dry and get lively later, which curiously enough has been the daily motto of most great newsmen.
Do art forms ever really vanish? The Greek plays of the 6th century BC are still performed as are songs played on instruments rudimentary to human civilization. Opera may wax or wane depending on nation or culture, but it is definitely not vanishing. Movies did not eliminate live theatre; in fact the more under-stated acting that the large screen welcomed ended up improving theatre. Based on the kind of movies he produced, Jack Warner had more to do with the development of the Method than Konstantin Stanislavsky; and I’m not so sure Jack Warner could have even spelt Stanislavsky.
And on and on. Radio did not replace movies nor did television replace radio (I’ll get to radio drama in the next column). Magazines did not replace newspapers and rock did not eliminate jazz.
‘Aha!’, you say believing you have a hole card that will beat me. ‘What about music? The LP is dead and who buys CDs except the elderly as Christmas presents for the kids?’ I’ll give that argument its due when it is proven correct. There are still LPs - ask Green Day or Radiohead - there are just less of them. If the music industry gleaned to the fact that there actually would be an audience out there for a product like the old ‘concept albums’ of the 1960s or 70s (Tommy, Aqualung etc.) with packaging that people would actually want ti own and display, there will be more of them. And the difference between an LP, CD or DVD is more an evolutionary scenario than an actual difference in form or content. Although granted DVDs can have visual content.
So, there is the historical argument. People and buildings may crumble into dust, but invent a popular art form and your imagination’s child becomes a god as immortal as Zeus. Nice to know.
And are newspapers and television newscasts art forms? Certainly. Even cursory observation bears that out. Are there elements of design? Yes. Are words and images chosen in order to impart meaning? Absolutely. Is not an editorial a soliloquy, a front page a theme and if there is an evening newspaper or newscast that didn’t have an interest in appealing to an audience then it certainly didn’t live long in the marketplace. (And yes art requires an audience in order to exist. Space is full of light but even light doesn’t seem to exist until it smacks into something and makes it shine.)
By my logic then - and I was schooled at the Vulcan Academy of Logic - news media is composed of art forms. So the lesson or the template to be derived by harried publishers or managing producers, racing about in the same mad way as my border collie was ripping through the house earlier tonight, trying to figure out what the hell to try next - that template can be found by looking at other arts and how they managed to survive.
I’ve already hinted at the answer. They largely survived by adapting elements of their new competitor into their own format. I mentioned the effect that movies had on live theatre. Acting changed, and so did writing. Because movies required camera movement to maintain visual interest, and because movies’ trump over theatre was the ability to instantly change settings, scenes were shorter in the movie theatre than in the live theatre. As such, dialogue became shorter, sharper and peppier. Theatre had to adapt. Effectively, there is a direct line from The Jazz Singer to David Mamet.
Book publishing to me is the classic adaptive art form. As an industry, publishing turns into a publicist for its competitors seeking public interest and dollars. Whatever the public shows an interest in, someone’s going to turn out a book about it.
So how can news media learn from their fellow artists. As they used to say on the radio, tune in next time. Be seeing you.
The one point that media executives should rest easiest about is the one that they most worry about. Extinction. Will the internet replace newspapers, magazines, television, radio, movies and pretty much every other form of communication other than the note passed to Sally Curlicue by Jimmy Jeroboam in Grade Three written in invisible ink. Oh wait, Jimmy probably just texts her anyway, so scratch that.
But - I don’t believe that the internet will totally replace print. I have two good reasons for that assumption - the livelier one instinctive, the drier based on historical evidence. Let’s start off dry and get lively later, which curiously enough has been the daily motto of most great newsmen.
Do art forms ever really vanish? The Greek plays of the 6th century BC are still performed as are songs played on instruments rudimentary to human civilization. Opera may wax or wane depending on nation or culture, but it is definitely not vanishing. Movies did not eliminate live theatre; in fact the more under-stated acting that the large screen welcomed ended up improving theatre. Based on the kind of movies he produced, Jack Warner had more to do with the development of the Method than Konstantin Stanislavsky; and I’m not so sure Jack Warner could have even spelt Stanislavsky.
And on and on. Radio did not replace movies nor did television replace radio (I’ll get to radio drama in the next column). Magazines did not replace newspapers and rock did not eliminate jazz.
‘Aha!’, you say believing you have a hole card that will beat me. ‘What about music? The LP is dead and who buys CDs except the elderly as Christmas presents for the kids?’ I’ll give that argument its due when it is proven correct. There are still LPs - ask Green Day or Radiohead - there are just less of them. If the music industry gleaned to the fact that there actually would be an audience out there for a product like the old ‘concept albums’ of the 1960s or 70s (Tommy, Aqualung etc.) with packaging that people would actually want ti own and display, there will be more of them. And the difference between an LP, CD or DVD is more an evolutionary scenario than an actual difference in form or content. Although granted DVDs can have visual content.
So, there is the historical argument. People and buildings may crumble into dust, but invent a popular art form and your imagination’s child becomes a god as immortal as Zeus. Nice to know.
And are newspapers and television newscasts art forms? Certainly. Even cursory observation bears that out. Are there elements of design? Yes. Are words and images chosen in order to impart meaning? Absolutely. Is not an editorial a soliloquy, a front page a theme and if there is an evening newspaper or newscast that didn’t have an interest in appealing to an audience then it certainly didn’t live long in the marketplace. (And yes art requires an audience in order to exist. Space is full of light but even light doesn’t seem to exist until it smacks into something and makes it shine.)
By my logic then - and I was schooled at the Vulcan Academy of Logic - news media is composed of art forms. So the lesson or the template to be derived by harried publishers or managing producers, racing about in the same mad way as my border collie was ripping through the house earlier tonight, trying to figure out what the hell to try next - that template can be found by looking at other arts and how they managed to survive.
I’ve already hinted at the answer. They largely survived by adapting elements of their new competitor into their own format. I mentioned the effect that movies had on live theatre. Acting changed, and so did writing. Because movies required camera movement to maintain visual interest, and because movies’ trump over theatre was the ability to instantly change settings, scenes were shorter in the movie theatre than in the live theatre. As such, dialogue became shorter, sharper and peppier. Theatre had to adapt. Effectively, there is a direct line from The Jazz Singer to David Mamet.
Book publishing to me is the classic adaptive art form. As an industry, publishing turns into a publicist for its competitors seeking public interest and dollars. Whatever the public shows an interest in, someone’s going to turn out a book about it.
So how can news media learn from their fellow artists. As they used to say on the radio, tune in next time. Be seeing you.
(Please share these columns and please share your comments. I always appreciate your opinions. - H)
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar