If you're not aware of how the Times reports things these days they not only attempt to bring you news of Malaysian malaise, but they also try and tell you the "backstory" of how clever they were to deliver the story, any story. They do this on Page Two.
Thus, in Saturday's paper they explained why after 81 years of providing TV listings they were wisely NOT going to provide TV listings starting as of the print paper's Monday August 31, 2020 edition. And lest you think they gave us all a reprieve, they didn't. I opened Monday's paper, and no TV listings, as they proudly announced.
The Times of course will continue to cover riots, protests, coronavirus outbreaks, presidential elections, hurricanes and statue topplings. They will not however tell us what's on Turner this evening. Or HBO, or Showtime, or even Channel 2 with their 5-word reviews about the show.
The Times of course is being run by people who buy $6 coffees and pay for it with a tap of a key fob. As I've gotten older I've gotten used to the fact that the people running things have gone to school with backpacks and cell phones attached to their hands. They don't carry books to school, but rather passwords to log onto who knows what.
Listen to some of the claptrap reasons The Times has now abandoned providing TV listings:
- The majority of subscribers won't even notice the removal of the TV grid and the What's on TV column after this weekend's papers. (Oh yeah? Where's the results of the survey you didn't take?)
- For years now the Times has published the grid only in its New York City edition, and not the national one. (What the fuck do you think "New York" means on your masthead?)
- We are firmly in the streaming age, and the TV grid no longer reflects the way people consume television. (What a load of elitist bullshit. "Consume" television! Like I fucking eat it! I may watch it, but I do not eat it!)
So, just as I've recently gotten access to Amazon Prime and Netflix, I can longer find out if there's something streaming in the print edition. We're in the "steaming" age, but I can't find out what's streaming! Gilbert Cruz, the editor of The Times's Culture Desk, should have his passwords revoked!
Their "Finale for the Daily TV Listings" obituary by Sarah Bahr (who I'm sure doesn't remember the same mayors and presidents as I do) goes on for two 8-inch columns. It is filled with more condescending comments about how people don't even want the listings, and about how if they do complain, The Times will listen. "But now [Mr Cruz] he thinks even those who don't like the decision will accept it." Don't tell what you think I'm going to accept, you smartphone, online, condescending editor.
The Times seems to have forsaken the part of their name that indicated where they are published from, namely New York.
They no longer seem to have a New York section to go along with their International and National sections in their A section. They don't send reporters to sporting events, even if it's to the home town playing someone. Seen an Islander score lately as they skate their way toward this year's Stanley Cup? Seen any box scores from the Mets and The Yankees.? Tell me about it.
A lifetime ago in the middle '60s when I was in high school, a kid in home room class who sat behind me, Mark Goldberg, grumbled that the New York Times was only good for stories about "Belgium imports." His critique has stayed with me all these years.
And if the NYT can now use language that they once would have never contemplated, even if it is a direct quote from a Republican Congressman directed at Alexander Ocasio Cortez (known by her Twitter handle as AOC), then I can use language that wouldn't have been allowed in print years ago.
The [New York] Times sucks!
http://www.onofframp.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment