Hello loyal reader,
Emma Mikuska-Tinman - Student
Sweater - Forever 21
Jeans - Levis
Boots - H&M
Necklace - H&M
Sunglasses - gojane.com
If you're not into reading a review for Page One: Inside the New York Times then stop reading NOW!
So essentially, by the act of blogging right now, I may play a fraction of a fraction of a part in shutting down the New York Times(NYT).It's c-c-crazy! But it's not my fault, journalists of the world, it's simply an assignment. By the act of assigning us these blogs, our professors are indirectly participating in the downfall of printed media. For shame.
The movie Page One: Inside the New York Times reminded me of the scene in Titanic shortly after the iceberg hit, when not everyone was aware of the looming chaos and devastation that would inevitably be their downfall. The New York Times is kind of like the Titanic of newspapers. Basically it's just so massive that no one thought it could ever sink, but just look at where that kind of hubris got ‘em.
From the way Page One makes it seem over at NYT HQ, there’s only one guy on staff who appears to know what a Twitter account is, and in fact he managed to "social media" himself on to the NYT staff. In one scene, Brian Stelter is mocked by the more old-fashioned staff for consistently staring at his IPhone or one of his several Macbooks. It’s kind of okay when it happens though, because he gives off the impression of a rotund, smarmy, but “connected” young person of this era. He pretty much embodies the archetype the rest of us are trying to distance ourselves from as much as possible.
 |
| Pictured: me in the future. |
Besides this unlikeable minor character, who is probably meant to represent me and my peers, it was super interesting to see how the Newspaper machine works on a physical level. The building, located- very obviously- in New York, was probably the most major character in the documentary, as it appeared in almost every shot. Occasionally, there would be glimpses of how the building used to be set up, and it gave off a very Mad Men vibe. It was almost bittersweet, as the hustle and bustle seemed more lively and less loom-ey.
On the whole, I felt as though the major conflicts in the film could have been better flushed out. They all boil down to the recent proliferation of social media tools. Many readers are now attempting to go as paperless as possible, and as such are getting their news from free electronic sources. The problem here is that the news has to be generated from somewhere before it hits the web, but with ever-declining readership the New York Times is probably going to, one day soon, be going out of business.
Before this film I had never considered that it actually costs money to bring people the news, I had just naively assumed that it was always around.
As the years go on and newspapers go out of style, it’ll be interesting to see how the market evolves. Perhaps in the near future mobile devices will be so prevalent that everyone will just report their own news as it happens.
A major drawback that I considered was the film's many brief and gratuitous shots of employees. You’d see ‘em once and then.. poof! they were gone. Perhaps they were laid off as the film was being filmed? Also, are there no female journalists at the NYT?!
If I was directing this movie, I would scrap just about everything and remake it all. My version, however, would focus only on following David Carr around; the crotchety, foul-mouthed former crack head turned journalist; who is arguably the only entertaining factor of this film.
Carr is like a gravelly-voiced, cooler version of Simon Cowell. This hunching waif of a guy ripped everyone in his path a new asshole, including several Vice magazine editors; and who hasn’t, at some point, dreamed of doing that?
*sigh*
