I think Paste Magazine is doing good things, however, I was disappointed by their article(or blurb, really) on the Livenation-Ticketmaster merger. For a publication whose content pertains mostly to music, I felt that their coverage of the situation was a bit lazy. Actually, after a paragraph or two they refer the reader to this article by Billboard. While much more informative, it leans on the wordy side (myriad revenues, vertical integration, ancillary revenues, etc.). The article was written for an industry insider rather than an average reader. At least the article warns of its complete dullness by being titled “Analysis: Potential Livenation, Ticketmaster Merger.” But why would Paste sic this article on their reader as opposed to interpreting it and breaking it down for them? As someone who frequently attends concerts, this story matters to me and will affect me (and my wallet), so the fact that my eyes glazed over and a yawn or two erupted before I made it through the piece means trouble, from a writing standpoint. I’m definitely not business-savvy, but I bet some of the Deadheads trying to figure out how this merger might affect them don’t know what ancillary revenues are either.
Apparently, The Wall Street Journal broke this story originally, but they want readers to subscribe just to read their online content (beyond a two paragraph tease). No thanks. Finally, as I was about to give up on finding a good example to show the others how it’s done, I came across this story done by the Chicago Tribune. The article hits all of the highlights in a way that is both informative without being stuffy and entertaining without taking away from the quality of the news. Some of the points the writer touches on might have been mentioned in the Billboard article, but instead of flying over my head, I understand them. Going back to the criteria we discussed in class about content, it made me feel smarter. Billboard made me feel dumb. And Paste just annoyed me for sending me to Billboard. When I read news, I like for the reporter to break it down for me in a digestible kind of way. The article was labeled “Commentary,” which I suppose could be suspect, along the lines of “editorial” and “opinion,” but if that’s what it takes then I’m OK with it. The points made by the writer weren’t fabricated. Everything was backed up by evidence. The Chicago Tribune did the best job that I came across at taking an issue I am concerned with and informing me on the implications of the situation that matter to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Julie,
ReplyDeleteInteresting analysis of several approaches to a single story. You're basically assessing how each of these publications interacts with its audience. I'm not familiar with Paste Magazine, but I think your critique of its coverage is on target; "lazy" is a good word for it. The piece seems to be trying to be both hip and insider-ish without really succeeding at either, and it leaves the heavy lifting to Billboard.
Your point about Billboard potentially writing over your head is a good one, but this is partly because Billboard considers music executives to be a major part of its audience. (See the bottom of its home page). If Billboard writes too broadly, that niche audience won't be served. The Tribune, on the other hand, is writing for a general audience, so this column explaining the merger has people just like you in mind.
I'm interested also in how quickly you dismiss the idea of paying for the Wall Street Journal content. The Journal broke the story, which means its reporting made all the subsequent reporting possible. It costs money to pay the folks who reported that story and put it up online. How do you propose those people get paid? When you graduate, if you go to work in the media, do you plan to do it for free? Somewhere along the line, if people want information, they're going to have to be willing to pay for it.
Perry