Vanity Fair's Graydon Carter, Out of Touch!

Over at Splice Today, Russ Smith argues that Graydon Carter, the longtime editor of Vanity Fair, is out of it regarding the causes and ramifications of the ongoing demise of print media. And Carter's proposed solution, laid out in his recent Editor's Letter in VF, is similarly off.

In a pro forma remark, Carter repeats the mantra that the "health and vigor" of newspapers is vital to the country's well-being, if only to keep "a watchful eye on corrupt politicians and venal corporate overlords." I'm sure that the dwindling number of employees at the Tribune Co., publisher of The Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun, among other properties, would nod heartily at Carter's "venal corporate overlords" dig, if they weren't too busy looking for work elsewhere to read Vanity Fair.

And this doozy: "I would also hope you feel that the loss or even weakening of the nation's principal daily, The New York Times, would mark an end to life as we know it." I've read the Times every day for most of my life-starting at the age of seven or so-but in the past year that frequency has diminished dramatically, and frankly, I'm no worse for wear, let alone having a life-altering experience….

Carter, who doesn't once mention that glossy magazines, including those in the Conde Nast stable that includes VF, are no longer minting money, is undeterred in dispensing pointers to beleaguered reporters and publishers. His go-get-'em guys! slap on the back: "My suggestion to newspapers everywhere is to give the public a reason to read them again. So here's an idea: get on a big story with widespread public appeal, devote your best resources to it, say a quiet prayer, and swing for the fences."

It could be that Carter himself doesn't read, whether out of self-denial or indifference, the volume of stories about the demise of print media, for if he did, he'd know that the "fences" have been moved about a mile further, and no amount of praying will ever bring them closer.

Whole thing here.

Matt Welch on Vanity Fair's holey archive of its pro-Bush coverage here.

Comments

[Ben Kenobi]

"a watchful eye on corrupt politicians and venal corporate overlords."

It would certainly be nice if journalists did start actually asking politicians hard questions and calling them on their bullshit. That won't happen with the Chosen One in office though.

[Kyle Jordan]

"a watchful eye on corrupt politicians and venal corporate overlords."

That's a great joke. A bit more like keeping lookout FOR them so they can continue to screw us over. Most newspapers serve to herd the sheeple. May they die a horrible, twitching death.

[Invisible Finger]

if only to keep "a watchful eye on corrupt politicians and venal corporate overlords.

As Matt Welch, et al, keep pointing out here - large newspapers do such a bad job keeping a watchful eye on corrupt politicians, more often acting as enablers than as watchdogs, that this purpose has been rendered useless.

[I, Kahn O\'Clast]

The local press did a very favorable full page fluff piece of propaganda on a local "green" builder. I wrote them informing that he was in the process of a chapter 7 liquidation of his firm, that there were multiple pending lawsuits against him (including my own) and that he had not completed the construction of a house at least a year (if not more) and that he was engaging in fraud. I included all the documents related to his bankruptcy filing which included a long list of aggrieved persons who were seeking damages -- along with addresses and phone numbers.

Did they print my letter? No. Did they investigate and write a hard-hitting piece about the scumbag? No. Did they write any follow up on any of it? No.

Watchful eye? Bullshit.

[H.F. Wolff]

Without serious investigative reporting newspapers are worth crap.

It is this insightful in-depth journalism that can, and has in the past, set the printed media apart from radio and television which also are failing in their business niche.

Agreed that this type of reporting costs money and the bean counters in charge would rather spend on accoutrements than to pay for decent reporting.

And being a shill for governments, big business, etc. is hardly the way to obtain and maintain the trust of public, such that they will accept the printed word.

A newspaper is not necessary to repeat the government's "news" releases.

As was pointed out above unless the newspapers supply information of serious and lasting value for the reader, the papers might as well close shop and not prolong a painful decline.

H.F. Wolff

[Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke]

I have never read the New York Times. Not once. If I ever do, though, it'd darned well better be a life-altering experience.

[ellipsis]

Yes, what would we do without the New York Times, and its constant drumbeat of hope and change. Not to mention its fondness for plagiarism.

[E Lorenzen]

Considering that Graydon Carter grew up in Trenton, Ontario (Canada) which is still a pretty small town where even the Toronto papers are sometimes hard to find, I doubt he was reading the New York Times at age seven. Even now in the 21st Century, Trentonians have to drive all the way to Belleville to get the NY Times.

[Gene Berkman]

Given its role in promoting statism and war, I look forward to the demise of the New York Times.

But the decline of the Los Angeles Times does sadden me. The LA Times was financially healthy, but Sam Zell undertook so much debt to buy the Chicago Tribune and the L.A.Times that both papers are now closed to bankruptcy.

[jtuf]

So here's an idea: get on a big story popular product with widespread public appeal, devote your best resources to it, say a quiet prayer, and swing for the fences.

Thank you mister obvious. Does he really believe he's the only on who could think of that?