Pros! Shoot Like an Amateur!

Clicking allows maximization. Print on shitty paper for authenticity, then hang it on the bulletin board of the coffee-break area in your dying production studio.

Clash of The Critics

No matter what movie you decide to see, some critics will love it and some will hate it. I saw Clash of the Titans a couple days ago at the supercheap theatre, you know the one, where films not yet on DVD but not in real theatres anymore are playing, where it only costs a dollar to get in and the refreshments aren't outrageously priced and the place is not so clean and maybe some of the theatres are having trouble with their air-conditioning and so maybe there's an ugly scratch in the film that persists throughout the whole duration, but hey, you paid a buck for a movie so what are you complaining about?

I generally rely on Rotten Tomatoes to give a good and widespread assessment of a movie before I go see it or rent it On Demand. I didn't this time. And I'm glad, 'cause at a 33% favorable rating, I might've missed some mindless summer afternoon fun. Definitely not Oscar-caliber, but what do you expect from a movie based on a movie from 1981?

Here's that snob Peter Travers from Rolling Stone:

"The film is a sham, with good actors going for the paycheck and using beards and heavy makeup to hide their shame."

But then here's Colin Covert of the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

"At the moment when Sam Worthington, trapped inside a giant scorpion, sword-hacked his way through the dorsal carapace and poked the upper half of his body through the opening as if it were a sunroof, I fell in love with Clash of the Titans."

Have you ever read a terrible review of your favorite band's new album and wanted to punch the critic in the face? Or saw a nasty write-up of one of your favorite restaurants by some nose-in-the-air food critic? The critics aren't right, they're just being critics. But sadly, they can doom a play, new CD, movie or dining establishment with a hastily slammed-out screed.  

It's fun to ignore the critics one in a while and just go have fun.

Note to Print Media: You're Doing it Wrong

Again. And still.

My local paper has several Twitter accounts. Here's the latest tweet from @OrlandoOpinion


What a worthless thing to waste my time on. What does it matter how we think the Senate should vote on Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court? Why is this news? What will you do with this information once you've gathered it? Will you send a note to Florida's two senators saying, "The respondents to our idiotic and inane poll think you should/should not confirm Obama's nominee."

If I were a Senator, I'd say to myself, "Hmmmm. Screw those idiots. What kind of loser takes the time to register his/her opinion on such a question? Maybe only crazy activists on either side of the political spectrum?"

Besides the complete and utter stupidity of such a tweet, what kills their request for me to go to their pole further is the command "Vote!"

No! I won't! You're being stupid.

But I suppose a few people clicked that way, then saw a banner ad for Embassy Suites and said, "You know what? That happy couple frolicking in the surf sure makes me want to take my wife to Fort Lauderdale for the weekend. I think I'll book a room. Aw, what the hell, let's upgrade that room to a deluxe suite! Oh, look! a car ad! We need a new car right about now!"

A couple of summers ago, I did a short six-week or so freelance stint at the local paper. It was a sad experience as I watched them try to desperately come up with ways to make more money and stem the exodus of subscribers. They wanted to create a weekly "Legal" section, much like their weekly "Auto" section, that they would fill with ads from personal injury attorneys. Problem was there are just not that many "legal" story angles to fill a section every week. They started up a weird offshoot site called Engine Head, which they tried not to associate themselves with, lest the street racers and local motorcycle enthusiasts realize it was a cleverly disguised ruse. I wrote a radio script for them in which the announcer said something to the effect of "subscribe to our feed" or "bookmark it and check us for weather, traffic, blah, blah, blah." They did not like that. They changed it to read, "Make us your homepage!" Delusional thinking, I told them. Does anyone have the local paper's website as their homepage?

Since I was there, they've undergone massive layoffs and attempts at colorful rebranding to the point that the paper now looks like a website, complete with banner ads along the bottom of the front page. I'm sure they're selling a few issues of commemorative Orlando Magic editions in the wake of our local team's surprising performance in the NBA playoffs, but the end is in sight for the print version and has been for a long time.

Naturally, all papers are trying to do the online thing, and the more clicks they can show, the more they can charge their banner ad placers. But when your tweets are that dumb, I'm not clicking on the links within, so I'm not seeing the banners, and I might just unfollow you now. The local TV stations' websites offer everything you do. They also want to be my source for news, weather, traffic, jobs, classifieds, and my first choice for stupid celebrity mugshots or pictures of kids on Spring Break getting drunk. Or dumbass polls that mean nothing.

What do you have that distinguishes you from anyone else? How are you different? Why should I visit your site? You're not offering me anything compelling.

Who Says Traditional Media is Dying?

My local paper, owned by the Tribune company, is doing its best to stay competitive, even in the face of bankruptcy and dwindling circulation numbers. They report on the things we are concerned about. Read the whole riveting tale here.

The Answer is NO, Nothing is Sacred

On Obama's recent Middle-East tour, he left a prayer in the Wailing Wall, which was then removed and published in an Israeli newspaper. Some rabbis are rightfully outraged at the paper, but since it's out there, I'll go ahead and show it to you, found at the LA Times, which exonerates itself for publishing it with the headline, "Israeli Paper Publishes Obama Western Wall Prayer." Sure, LA Times, blame it on the Jews.

Now I will show you the prayer as interpreted by Sean Hannity.


As always, the extremely witty commenter community at Gawker is having fun with this story.

Yes, I Agree Moderately

Operating a newspaper these days has to suck. Having done a short freelance gig in my city paper's creative services department, I can attest that subscriptions are way down and the online side of the paper is a never-ending circus of weird and wacky ways to make money. The web presence of most newspapers wants to be everything from a recipe resource to a place to find a mate or some used garden equipment.

I don't take the local paper at home because finding the news among all the ads is a chore and a hassle. Even the plastic bag in which they toss the thing on rainy days is covered in ads. When you do find the news, it's about a local boy who stupidly went swimming in a gator-infested body of water and lost a limb, or it's a "heart-warming" story of a local couple's attempts to get quality health care for their dying dog that saved them from a burning bus a decade ago. They'll also cover salacious local celebrity gossip and boring county zoning meetings, but if I want actual news, Google headlines suffices. Locally, I'll more often than not turn to a TV station's website. Papers are dying.So it was interesting to find this innocuous request for my assistance from the LA Times on a recent visit to their site. (The Times is owned by the same group, Tribune, that owns my city's paper.) I liked the request seen above because they weren't shouting at me. They were asking, quite nicely, in simple text, if I might want to help them in their "brief" survey. I stupidly obliged.

Brief it wasn't. They wanted to know how often I came to the Times. Why? What did I like? Dislike? Did I find the Times Cluttered, Appealing, Comprehensive, Boring, Easy-to-use, Convenient, Modern, Hip, Innovative, Informative, Fun, Sophisticated, Trustworthy, Fresh, Smart, Outdated, Relevant, Colorful? What did I want to see more of? Less of? Where do I live? What is my income? Education? Age? Do I come to the Times for environmental news? Sports? Southern California news? Lifestyle news? Cars? Weather? Jobs? Endless.

Finally, they thanked me thusly: Thanks for your time! Your answers will help us improve the latimes.com homepage and the rest of the site. We like hearing from you. We will occasionally run short surveys such as this one; however, please feel free to contact us anytime by using our feedback page.

I distrust surveys, focus groups and market research as a means of improving anything. For starters, I did not take the time to carefully answer the questions the Times asked me. I just wanted to get through the stupid thing. I checked The "mildly disagree" category for most of the questions. Which brings me to another point: Can anyone really distinguish between "sort of not really disagree" and "kind of agree to a degree"? on these things? Must there be five degrees of agreeability?

So let's say 45% of visitors who even bothered to take your survey think the LA Times is mildly "sophisticated." Now what? Or 13% of visitors (who, again, even bothered to take the survey) "somewhat agree" that they come to the LA Times for weather information. What can you do with that information?

I understand the desire to create a "positive customer experience," but at some point you have to realize, "Hey, we're all professionals here. We read newspapers and go to news sites. What do WE want to see more or less of?" Trust your instincts. Go with your gut.

When you rely on the market to dictate your product, you end up with a watered down product. How many people can you possibly please? How many people angry enough to tell you they hate you do you even want to keep? It's like creating an ad. If the client, planner, AE, legal and the Senior VP of Political Correctness all have their say, there isn't really much left for Creative to do. You end up with a shitty ad that probably won't be effective.

Hey, LA Times: do what you want. Don't ask me. I will go to your site when I need you or when a link from Google News takes me there. Report the news. Sell ad space. Give me the occasional picture of a celebrity attacking a photographer. Make your site easily navigable. You'll never be my homepage. The most you can expect is that when I think of Los Angeles and information pertaining to the City of Angels, I will think of you.

In College it Won't Be Illegal

Having done a few weeks of freelancing for the creative services division of my local paper this summer, I can attest to the fact that print journalism is having a tough time of it, particularly local newspapers. Subscriptions are dropping and no one knows quite how to monetize this whole Internet thing, aside from placing annoying pop-up ads on every page of the paper's website. The online versions of the newspapers want to be everything to everyone. “We’re your news, weather and traffic source. And dining guide. And job hunting place. And garage sale finder. And place to meet singles in your area.” Trouble is, every local TV and radio station website makes the same claims. The competition for readers and visitors is getting tough. The Post, The Times and the various wire services have all the international or national stories locked up, so the papers resort to touching human interest stories or titillating scandal.

So I guess it shouldn’t have surprised me to find my local paper scraping the barrels of salacious journalism today on their website, offering up as one of their Photos of the Year galleries Women Arrested for Having Sex with Their Students, brought to you by the University of Phoenix.