Adventures in bad journalism

Quite possibly the worst piece of the year so far (and considering the last week has seen the Lite Brite Bomb plot in Boston and the Super Bowl that's saying something) is from the New York Times:


www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/arts/television/07watc.html?ref=arts

(sorry, I can't seem to get the link to work properly, so my loyal readers -- I think you're plural -- will have to cut and paste)

In it, the author goes on to talk about the current popularity of supernatural-themed shows and what they may mean to our culture (it could be bad!); the nature of science fiction fandom (they're all geeks!); and the current state of Lost, which returns to TV in about.. 23 minutes. The last -- which is supposed to be the focus of the article -- seems to only come up in passing, and -- as it has been noted by other posters -- is almost completely wrong.

Look, I can handle the lame slings and arrows (though I've never been compared to an anti-abortion protester before. Geeks don't gather to protest things they hate; they gather to celebrate things they like.), but good journalism always starts in the details. If they're wrong, anything else you may have to say is pretty much lost.

I've noticed this from the Times pop culture writers, who seem so desperate to be in-step with some impossible-to-achieve hip demographic that they end up sounding absolutely out of touch. That's how a weak come back by Jay-Z gets lauded to the hilt; how epic underachievers like the Arctic Monkeys can be tipped as the next big thing; and where you can get a headline like this: "Timberlake, Pop Juggernaut, Is Gaining Some Unusual Fans"

This kind of panderng is fine in Entertainment Weekly, where there are few pretentions about what the magazine means in the life of the readers. And it even works to an extent in USA Today, where a lot of the A&E coverage is pretty much "Gosh, isn't TV, film and music fun! (books and theater too, but only when there's a connection to one of the first three)."

But the Times is supposed to be Important. 'Cause it's the Times, I guess. So a piece about one of the most popular shows returning after a three-month hiatus, a time where fans wondered if the program had become rudderless, and where producers started to hint an end may be coming sooner than later, can't just be about the show, but has to encompass a ton of truly unrelated programs and a laughable excursion into the "meaning" of these show's popularity (the simplest -- that they're well made, have interesting characters and tell stories that draw people in week after week -- doesn't seem to bear a mention).

Simply put -- have something to say; say it well; and, for heaven's sake, get it right.

Anyway, I gotta go. Lost is about to start.