Copyright 2005 Ben S. Pollock
Jan. 2, 2005: In the paper and online today is Dave Barry’s final column as a regularly run syndicated humor columnist. He announced this a few months ago, calling it a sabbatical of indefinite length while acknowledging writing projects in other media, maybe including papers. Also in the fall, Jimmy Breslin and William Safire similarly semi-retired from newspapers. They’re two-three decades older than Dave.
He has had a 30-year-plus run, though throughout he has kept a Dick Clark-like young dad attitude (and physical appearance, too), and he might as well be the last national humor columnist appearing in daily newspapers. My master’s thesis that I finished almost two years ago defended this.
(I am not now re-examining the hypothesis; just realizing I ended graduate school about 20 months ago or so infuriates me about the time spent since.)
Barry, Safire, Breslin. All giants, like them or not. The question in this New Year is whether their passing shows a permanence in the trend of newspapers toward whatever they’re trying to do: Make more money while losing readers, idealism, flavor and grasp.
Breslin and Safire will be replaced, because New York papers still use this sort of thing. But New York is not America, the election reminded us.
Local papers will have local humor writers but Barry shtick is a dinosaur; he even said so in a recent interview, with The Washington Post? Newspapers are not fossils, any more than record albums. (Downloading songs is no more than the party tapes of 20-30 years ago, just evolved electronically. At some point party tapes are as much fun to create as to listen to (or show off with) and at a nearby point is a nuisance or inconvenience easily canceled with the purchase of CDs.)
Evolution, though, is a fact. Some years ago, somebody criticized the concentration of newspaper ownership and I responded that even small communities still have multiple outlets for contrary thought and competitive journalism. They’ve just changed. Alternative weeklies and local TV, including community cable access, have lots of faults but other perspectives do come from them. Jon Stewart “works” on cable but would fade or devolve quickly on network; this is Bill Maher’s lesson. And of course the Internet, which my best man Bruce calls the ultimate niche outlet; it’s narrowcasting not broadcasting but the narrow on the Internet admittedly can be very broad. His point is that even a large Web site institutionally if not tautologically aims toward the particular not the general.
Blogs are not columns, though most who consider this matter see great similarities (Dennis Loy Johnson’s C-Span-2 forum of top bloggers in December noted this). I cannot write a column on the Brick; it wouldn’t look right. Besides, some of my column ideas would get me in trouble here (Lileks: “The truth may set you free, but it will get you called to the editor’s office.”), and a blog on paper would appear too idiosyncratic.
Blogs look dashed off. That is their first charm. I bet few are: That’s your reputation, buddy, based on what you crafted. It better convey your intent. Newspapers comparatively are at the latest, yesterday. Their charm is the implication of even just a little reflection and opportunity to create a whole picture, compared to radio or cable news. Just consider last week’s Southeast Asia tsunamis, what you perceived from video and what you learned from text.
This is not bad or good. It just is. Newspaper management has become more frightened of inconsistency (all businesses always are scared of unpredictability; this is an instance of it increasing precipitously). Papers will accept extremes of view, by, say, publishing Safire on the right and Breslin the left due to their consistency. What was terrific about these two is when they weren’t: Safire has railed against both Bushes, and Breslin could stab Clinton and mock Gore and Kerry.
The columnist who writes about absolutely whatever occurs to her is fading in newspapers but may have a spot on the Internet, if not widespread readership or a decent direct income. The humorist similarly is losing a place in print; who will be offended? Most newspapers want to offend no one; they need their journalistic defense of the best information available at press time with commentary by established experts. Yet even “brave” newspapers that don’t mind offending, or even see the value (including profit) of taking sides do insist on predicting the impact and direction of attacks, or “mere” jokes.
Yet I believe in the equilibrium of the above paragraphs, that such messages will out somewhere, if not their previous outlets. So what do I do with the four column ideas I thought of in the past three days? They would work in print, I can see them on the page, but on the Net, they might float in the Ether uncomfortably.
I am not a columnist but make a living as an editor and designer who ensures that the news pages are as complete and even-handed as possible with the available material. This livelihood is nearly one year old, and it took 30 months to land it.
On the other hand, I have resolved to do Brick more frequently as it is becoming the thriving method of essay. And here are some fun ideas to consider. … -30-
