Via John Breslin
Hands up who heard about 9/11 from the front page of a newspaper?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
no on the tv
Thank god you were here to respond to Tom’s totally serious question.
god DAMN it jerome!
On the radio
The thing about the papers they don’t even get the facts right despite having time on their side!
I didnt hear about it no, but i did read about it
i think thats what the angle the ad is working
Read all about it in your newspapers. Tomorrow.
Watch it today, with panic, rumours, insinuations, mistakes, clarifications, half-baked speculation and opinions, meaningless random vox pops, tweets off the internet, endless scrolling, exploding, whirling graphics and ad breaks. Read it tomorrow, definitely without most, hopefully without all, of those harmonious elements.
The thing is though, very few people are actually going to put their iphone down and say “I’ll just read about this momentous event tomorrow once the good people of Independent News and Media have determined what I need to know about it.”
For huge events like 9/11, newspapers are inevitably late to the party – the ad evokes the medium’s fundamental weakness.
Well, people might value excited, spectacular, here-and-now, immediate but shallow, confused and limited coverage over the next day’s sober, comprehensive, factual details, analysis, eyewitness accounts etc, but we’re the poorer for it. I find the ‘late to the party’ attitude to profoundly miss the point. Unfortunately, with real journalism in print being cut ever closer to the bone, (and increasingly rare on television) the next day coverage is diminishing in quality all the time, too.
How are we “poorer” for getting our news the day it happens and not the next day.
News is news.
News pumped through Rogets Thesaurus is still news.
Why do you think that you can’t find “sober, comprehensive, factual details, analysis, eyewitness accounts etc” online? You get that within hours rather than tomorrow, as well as the real time twitter chatter (whose value you can’t discount out of hand). “Real journalism” isn’t defined by its medium.
I think you’ll find that as time goes on and more and more people discover that you can get today’s news as well as yesterday’s online, more and more print readers will take to missing the same point as I apparently do. You can’t argue with the marketplace. I sympathise with the plight of those who have built careers on the print paradigm, but you’re shouting “Get back, ya bastard!” at the tide.
Stuart F.: I don’t necessarily think we’re poorer one way or the other. The immediacy of live coverage is great. The sober reflection and in-depth analysis of the next day or the next week may be less exciting, but perhaps crucial to understanding what’s going on. Culturally, we’re leaning a bit too much to the former, it seems to me.
Tom: well, first of al because that much reading online strains my flippin’ eyes is why. Secondly, while if you can find them, the internet is a treasure trove of professionals willing to provide competent, albeit amateur, analysis and insights on current events as they relate to their areas of expertise, which can be invaluable. However there’s precious little real journalism and a whole lot of the equivalent of the opinion pages based on reportage from screen or print. I’m not for a second suggesting there’s anything remotely wrong with accessing your news via the internet, but most of that news will be sourced from screen or print sources. That’s where journalism mostly starts, and that’s where it’s being whittled down. There may be a viable model for proper in-depth professional journalism to be practised almost exclusively online, but I ain’t seen it yet.
I’m not arguing with the marketplace, I’m pointing out the detrimental effects. ‘The point’ is that live coverage of the news will, generally, give you the surface, the actual events. Not to say this isn’t crucially important, even vital, but to get a deeper understanding of those events you need in-depth journalism, which takes time and effort and money and experience to achieve. You can do that on television, in print or online. At the moment, its increasingly derelict home is in print. But you can usually catch it online. Without paying.
Nice thread Nigel, well said.
Nigel, the papers are taking thier info from the same root sources you and I do! Irish journalists in particuylar are among the worst offenders! look at the blige pumps the Sindo employ. Fact-lite ramblings of an over-paid cossetted class who cheerlead for the highest bidder.
Read yesterday’s news with tomorrow’s bag of chips.
D’ya know. I can’t remember the last time I saw chips wrapped in newspaper.
Food safety authorities stopped the practice after high traces of bull excrement were found in the chips.
They probably think that’s awful clever.
But either Time or the Economist did a far better and more tasteful ad on the same theme a few years ago.
A smarter ad would have been a picture of New Yorkers at street level going about their business (never looking upwards) followed by the same street with everyone looking up in shock.
yeah sure it would
loooool. Nonsense. The line is ‘the world can change in one day’ – now, unless New Yorkers were to remain permanently fixated on the skyline your idea doesn’t work.
Too subtle for you.
That’s a very nice idea but within the format of this campaign (as it appears), probably impossible to execute.
But they are not as clever as keyboard warrior, Mick. Or are they…?
Make up a new one, that one is very old.
‘Knights Of Qwerty.’
“But either Time or the Economist did a far better and more tasteful ad on the same theme a few years ago.”
Joan Rivers did a cracking joke even sooner after!
What’s the logic behind the five pictures? Is it days of the week? Because 9/11 was a Tuesday.
The Jimmy Saville version of this ad is in poor taste also
I hope you paid for the link to that image
Ad makes sense to me
I really dislike that logo for the National Newspapers of Ireland.
They’re Ns but backwards! Amazing concept!
Would have been cooler to have Godzilla striding along in the last picture….
+1 It really would.
The three groups of four dots at the end of the page…
That’s the secret code for Jim Corr.
I thought as much
Don’t really see much of a difference in crassness between this and the celebration of the Titanic disaster.
If you find that ad crass, and if you really think anyone has ever “celebrated” the Titanic disaster, you’re probably very, very easily offended.
Unless I can read about it the day before, I’m out. They really need to up their game. An Irishman’s Diary is about the only thing worth reading in the Times these days, unless it’s yer man’s diary of course, then I’m out again.