Offshore Sailor Needs Advice

[Capt. Dan]

If one was open minded, there is plenty of data showing that global warming is occuring, but has nothing to do with man -- thus making it a less interesting story to exploit. One would have to be open minded though.

[NOLA_sailing]

Originally Posted by ronniesimpson

nick, i don't think my exploits are on the same scale as the election, Iraq, and the financial crisis. thanks for the plug, though. haha.

Ronnie for President?

[sneuman]

As a lifelong journalist, I periodically hear this complaint about focusing only on "bad news". As I like pointing out "Man Arrives Home Safely From Work" does not a headline make.

Furthermore, journalism is -- unfortunately, in many cases - a business. If you all wanted to pay money to read "good news" (that is what you say you want), there would be a market for it. You don't want to read it, so there isn't (a market, that is).

Think about it: how many of you have read books on the ill-fated 1979 Fastnet Race or the 1998 Sydney to Hobart? Would you read a book (if there was one) about the 2007 Sydney to Hobart? Nothing spectacular about that race. No headlines, no books, no interest.

In a larger sense, it is (ideally) journalism's underlying raison d'etre to shine a light on what is wrong, so that presumably what's wrong can be set right. When all you hear is "good news" about the government, the economy, crime, etc., you'll know you're living in a totalitarian regime (or just watching too much Fox News Channel)!

[NOLA_sailing]

Originally Posted by sneuman

As a lifelong journalist, I periodically hear this complaint about focusing only on "bad news". As I like pointing out "Man Arrives Home Safely From Work" does not a headline make.

Furthermore, journalism is -- unfortunately, in many cases - a business. If you all wanted to pay money to read "good news" (that is what you say you want), there would be a market for it. You don't want to read it, so there isn't (a market, that is).

Think about it: how many of you have read books on the ill-fated 1979 Fastnet Race or the 1998 Sydney to Hobart? Would you read a book (if there was one) about the 2007 Sydney to Hobart? Nothing spectacular about that race. No headlines, no books, no interest.

In a larger sense, it is (ideally) journalism's underlying raison d'etre to shine a light on what is wrong, so that presumably what's wrong can be set right. When all you hear is "good news" about the government, the economy, crime, etc., you'll know you're living in a totalitarian regime (or just watching too much Fox News Channel)!

I agree that journalism, as a business, is catering to the culture of disaster obsession (why do people REALLY watch NASCAR?). The other side of the coin, however, is how competitive the media has become due to the now instant, 24 hour access by its consumers across countless mediums. The ante is increasingly upped making the hype and suspense that can be placed on the news overly intensified to outdo the other guys.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by NOLA_sailing

I agree that journalism, as a business, is catering to the culture of disaster obsession (why do people REALLY watch NASCAR?). The other side of the coin, however, is how competitive the media has become due to the now instant, 24 hour access by its consumers across countless mediums. The ante is increasingly upped making the hype and suspense that can be placed on the news overly intensified to outdo the other guys.

I couldn't agree more. I have often said (only half jokingly) that helicopters were the worst thing to ever happen to the profession.

For the record, I have worked in print (AP, Wall Street Journal) and radio (NPR), but have steered clear of television.

[LakeSuperior]

While we're on the topic of news...consider the fate of the Detroit Free Press when they wrote an article critical of the big three auto makers about 15 years ago. Their Sunday advertising supplement went down by 2/3's. Rightfully punished I guess.

This lesson is why I value opinions in Practical Sailor over the rest of the Sailing Mags.

[nickj]

Originally Posted by sneuman

As a lifelong journalist, I periodically hear this complaint about focusing only on "bad news". As I like pointing out "Man Arrives Home Safely From Work" does not a headline make.

A fair balance is all I'm personally interested in.

If you think popular media is currently well balanced, all I can do is sit here and laugh. A good and recent example is the public endorsement of Obama by many of the large newspapers. If a newspaper can endorse a candidate, then it can endorse any of it's own agenda... Therefore if it's own agenda is to sell newspapers (which it is; it's a business), naturally proliferating bad news with 95pt headlines is kin to printing money.

Anyway, I'm not the only disenfranchised media consumer - Many people are turning to blogs en masse, because of the hype and bias...

Anyway, I'm more interested in hearing about Ronnie's book deals, magazine articles, and his search for a $5,000 ocean ready vessel, amongst the lady boys and the other assorted folk of Hong Kong. Media bias and CO2 (both of which I probably somewhat responsible for bringing up) are currently mundane topics when there is a storm tactic debate going on.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by nickj

A fair balance is all I'm personally interested in.

If you think popular media is currently well balanced, all I can do is sit here and laugh. A good and recent example is the public endorsement of Obama by many of the large newspapers. If a newspaper can endorse a candidate, then it can endorse any of it's own agenda... Therefore if it's own agenda is to sell newspapers (which it is; it's a business), naturally proliferating bad news with 95pt headlines is kin to printing money.

Anyway, I'm not the only disenfranchised media consumer - Many people are turning to blogs en masse, because of the hype and bias...

Anyway, I'm more interested in hearing about Ronnie's book deals, magazine articles, and his search for a $5,000 ocean ready vessel, amongst the lady boys and the other assorted folk of Hong Kong. Media bias and CO2 (both of which I probably somewhat responsible for bringing up) are currently mundane topics when there is a storm tactic debate going on.

Perhaps you are young, but newspaper editorial page endorsements are a very old tradition. Btw, the vast majority of those endorsements (at least in the middle of the country) have gone to Republicans over the years. This year appears to be the exception.

[nickj]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Perhaps you are young, but newspaper editorial page endorsements are a very old tradition. Btw, the vast majority of those endorsements (at least in the middle of the country) have gone to Republicans.

Yes, maybe I am young, but I'm also not from the US, and have not experienced newspaper endorsements before... Anyway, interesting they are mostly Republican endorsements, from what I've heard on the radio, it would seem the other way around.

Tick tick tick (I just looked into that quote):

"As of 10/27, among the top 100 papers, Obama has been endorsed by papers with a circulation of 16.0 Million, McCain by papers with a circulation of 4.2 Million, and papers with a circulation of 0.8 Million have announced they will not be endorsing a candidate."

n

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by nickj

Yes, maybe I am young, but I'm also not from the US, and have not experienced newspaper endorsements before... Anyway, interesting they are mostly Republican endorsements, from what I've heard on the radio, it would seem the other way around.

Tick tick tick (I just looked into that quote):

"As of 10/27, among the top 100 papers, Obama has been endorsed by papers with a circulation of 16.0 Million, McCain by papers with a circulation of 4.2 Million, and papers with a circulation of 0.8 Million have announced they will not be endorsing a candidate."

n

I am sorry, you posted while I was editing for clarity. I added "over the years" to emphasize that this year is the exception. In any case, newspaper endorsements are probably largely irrelevant these days considering, as you point out, all the other so-called media out there.

[GordMay]

Let's not stray into partisan politics.

Many people confuse what they read in a newspaper, with news.

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by sneuman

<snip>

In a larger sense, it is (ideally) journalism's underlying raison d'etre to shine a light on what is wrong, so that presumably what's wrong can be set right. When all you hear is "good news" about the government, the economy, crime, etc., you'll know you're living in a totalitarian regime (or just watching too much Fox News Channel)!

Perhaps it's just nuance, sneuman, but I believe that journalism's reason for being is to shine a light on what is outside the norm. That is, those things that are one or two deviations above or below the mean are "news," whether they're perceived to be "good" or "bad."

For example, the discovery of Steve Fossett's unfortunate small plane crash near Mammoth recently was certainly newsworthy, but not because it was "wrong." And, when set beside all of his many sailing and flying exploits that were deemed equally newsworthy, the discovery of his crashed plane was mostly of interest because of who he was and the fact that he'd been missing for about a year. That made this one small plane crash different from any of the dozens of others that had occurred over the last year.

So, in my view, Fossett's many world record adventures were "good news" (if the only options are "good" or "bad"), and his being killed by flying his small plane into the side of a mountain is "bad news." What made these things newsworthy is the fact that each deviated from the mean.

Further, the judgment of whether something is good or bad, or right or wrong, is a subjective thing within the perception of each news-reader, -listener or -watcher. A reporter's job is to gather the facts surrounding an event that deviates from the mean, assemble them into an interesting presentation that neither changes nor distorts those facts, then ignore any and all praise and/or condemnation for his presentation as he moves on to the next event.

TaoJones

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by TaoJones

Perhaps it's just nuance, sneuman, but I believe that journalism's reason for being is to shine a light on what is outside the norm. That is, those things that are one or two deviations above or below the mean are "news," whether they're perceived to be "good" or "bad."

For example, the discovery of Steve Fossett's unfortunate small plane crash near Mammoth recently was certainly newsworthy, but not because it was "wrong." And, when set beside all of his many sailing and flying exploits that were deemed equally newsworthy, the discovery of his crashed plane was mostly of interest because of who he was and the fact that he'd been missing for about a year. That made this one small plane crash different from any of the dozens of others that had occurred over the last year.

So, in my view, Fossett's many world record adventures were "good news" (if the only options are "good" or "bad"), and his being killed by flying his small plane into the side of a mountain is "bad news." What made these things newsworthy is the fact that each deviated from the mean.

Further, the judgment of whether something is good or bad, or right or wrong, is a subjective thing within the perception of each news-reader, -listener or -watcher. A reporter's job is to gather the facts surrounding an event that deviates from the mean, assemble them into an interesting presentation that neither changes nor distorts those facts, then ignore any and all praise and/or condemnation for his presentation as he moves on to the next event.

TaoJones

Quite right and well said. My "good news", "bad news" comparison was largely metaphorical. I placed the argument in that context because that is often the form that complaints take: "Why don't you print some good news?"

[Amgine]

I might take it somewhat differently as well. News is presenting information generally unknown to the audience and yet which is relevant to them.

To take your expample of the 2007 Hobart race, I'd bet a large percentage of the CF readership would be interested in examinations of some of the new technologies used in the race, expert forensic examination of the weather strategies used and how they compared with both the actual weather and their results - both in the racing point of view and the just sailing fast point of view. A few of us would like the chapters about the various designs, maybe some "embedded" reporting about the sailors and boats involved, the rivalries and syndicates, etc.

This would be great news coverage for us, because we weren't there but it's something relevant to us.

Bringing this back to Ronnie and CF... Yes, he's probably going to be able to write material for niche markets specifically targeting us - Sailors. Most likely he'll fail to succeed unless he writes a much more sympathetic story than he started with here, because we weren't swayed very much and we're that same target audience. He might also try to market the story to a wider audience, maybe emphasizing the he-man elements, or better yet the "I'm more ignorant than you and I messed up" angle (oh c'mon! how many of you *haven't* felt a bit smug when some newbie sailor pulls in to the anchorage and messes the anchor set up royally?)

News is infotainment. It must be entertaining long enough to inform.

Originally Posted by NOLA_sailing

Ronnie for President?

Unfortunately, the minimum age for President in the US is 35.