Some Tribute!

I first saw the following video clip a couple of years ago, but I just stumbled across it again the other day on YouTube. It is one of the most impressive tributes I’ve seen or heard. (I’m sure there are more monumental ones to figures like Gandhi or Mother Theresa, but I haven’t heard them. I’ve heard this.)

“What is it?” you wonder. It’s Robert Plant’s 2007 tribute to Jimmy Page on the occasion of the legendary guitarist receiving yet another lifetime achievement award from some British music magazine . Only someone as close to the source as Plant was could have so precisely articulated the scope of Page’s brilliance.

Despite his notable shortcomings (e.g., sketchy song attribution on a few occasions and years of severe drug addiction), Page has long been a musical hero of mine. His considerable catalog of great work represents an unparalleled mixture of songwriting brilliance, guitar technique (not always masterful, but ever inspired and charismatic) and mastery of the recording studio. With Led Zeppelin, he conceived and directed the greatest rock band of all time.

Whatever your field of endeavor, you could only hope that one day someone might say something akin to this about your vision, commitment and accomplishments.

Making Journalism Better

Matt Thompson’s Newsless.org site features a very astute analysis of the shortcomings of journalism today and highlights a few fundamental shifts in thinking and approach that would make journalism better and more vital.

Thompson is a strong believer that the web offers opportunities to redeem traditional news organizations, but his outline of the key news elements that are all-too-often missing in journalism applies to all platforms, as do his recommended corrections.

In agreement with Thompson, I have long held that media today fails to present meaningful context to readers (or viewers, for that matter. As a result, it lacks credibility and usefulness. In short, it does not facilitate genuine understanding of the important issues of our day. All too often we miss (or forget) the forest for dissecting the needles of one tree.

A key part of the credibility gap in journalism today, Thompson argues, is the need for more transparency in the process: Media must do more to let people in on “the details of their quest to uncover the truth.” This would enhance the audience’s understanding and enjoyment, he writes.

I agree that journalism needs to be more entertaining and, like Thompson, emphasize that that can be done in conjunction with – rather than at the expense of – providing more substance, too. Context helps to engage readers and retain them beyond the basic details of the headline and the lead.

As basic as it may seem, journalistic organizations – be they newspapers, magazines, websites, TV or radio – must refocus reportage beyond “What just changed” to the essential questions of:

• What we know

• What it means

• Why it matters

• What we don’t know

• Where do we go from here

In a world increasingly inundated with information and sensory overload, it’s more important than ever for journalists to connect the details back to the big picture.

Was Radio to TV as Print Is to Digital?

Here’s another recent Wall Street Journal column that offers an interesting historical anecdote to provide some perspective on today’s media industry struggles.

There are those who believe that history is cyclical, almost repeating itself every now and then. Maybe we are reliving “The New Media Crisis of 1949” in 2009.

Now That Would’ve Been Something!

In my reading about the state of the media industry (critical perspectives on how we got where we are today and myriad hypotheses on how we might find our way to a new sustainable model), I came across this interesting Market Watch column on The Wall Street Journal’s site. In it writer Jon Friedman discusses the state of the newspaper business and interviews San Francisco Chronicle and Hearst Newspaper Co. editor-at-large Phil Bronstein.

While there are some interesting, if not entirely new, points raised through the course of the column, what I found most interesting was Bronstein’s tale of how in 1994, as the executive editor of the San Francisco Examiner, he attempted to hire renowned gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson to cover the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

Imagine that! Thompson would’ve had an absolute field day with that one. He had gone to town covering the Pulitzer divorce trial that rocked Palm Beach in the early 1980s for Rolling Stone (lots of skeletons shakin’ out of socialites’ closets in that one). One can only begin to imagine the scathing wit and satire Dr. Gonzo could’ve applied to the O.J. debacle – the camera-hungry attorneys, the L.A. police dept., the Brentwood celebrity crowd, the delusionally-egotistical-and-not-so-smart former athlete ... the whole lot! HST was a master of social commentary, after all; the more twisted the better.

Bronstein had somewhat of an “in” to hook the good doctor for the assignment because Thompson had recently been writing a regular (well ... frequent, not much regular about HST) column for the Examiner.

During the negotiations between writer and editor, HST had the cojones to demand a satellite dish, two suites at the Chateau Marmont (long L.A.’s notoriously decadent playground to wanton stars of all pursuits and persuasions), and, last but not least, an unlimited expense account! Alas, the poor (literally) Examiner didn’t stand a chance. Thompson wouldn’t cave. He didn’t need the gig and he had nothing more to prove to anybody.

Maybe it’s better that it didn’t happen. By the 1990s HST had, for the most part, become a parody of himself. Like many great talents and artists, he failed to rise above his own best clichés ... instead resorting to simply replaying them with different names and places. I prefer to remember him fearing and loathing what he saw in Las Vegas and haranguing Nixon until he left D.C. with his tail between his legs.

Res ispa loquitur.

The Passing of a True “Political Presence”

There have been many touching and well-deserved tributes to Ted Kennedy today in the wake of his passing – most far beyond what I could offer on the subject. Suffice to say, he was a great public figure whose heart was always in the right place even if (in earlier years, at least) his brain and body might not have been.

One can’t help but be moved by the many testimonies today to his dedication and compassion as a legislator, as well as to what a genuinely personable and caring individual he was – especially in his last two decades.

I met Massachusetts’ senior senator in person only once , back when I was a community newspaper editor and he visited our offices during a 1990 campaign tour – he must’ve been hitting every podunk borough in the commonwealth! At that time, my main impression was less about his policies and politics than about how bad he looked. He was, I recall, a bloated gin blossom in a fancy dark suit. Obviously, this was before Victoria Reggie cleaned him up and seemingly overnight turned him into the respected old political lion he is immortalized as today.

However, then and now, I have great respect for his tireless work on many important issues during his half-century of public service. And I especially admire both his willingness and his ability to build bridges across that wide aisle of partisanship in D.C. and beyond. In that regard at the very least, we need more like him.

R.I.P., the last prince of the Camelot. (What’s left are mere squires and handmaidens by comparison).