fek:

soupsoup:

A great interview with Jack Shafer on Reliable Sources about media criticism and having strong journalistic standards.

Only reblogging because I feel like Jack is—like anybody—baiting me by simply going on Reliable Sources to begin with. Howard Kurtz again proves to be about as insightful a media critic as I am a string theorist: I’m paraphrasing, but he asks if the proliferation of the internet puts additional “pressure” on media critics and whether or not their authority is minimized because of this, the foundation of that question of course being: Aren’t you worried about these hacks from the internet making us irrelevant? 

Too-easy answer aside, fact is, places like the Washington Post’s hostility at, skepticism towards, and slow adaptation of technology from 1997 onward is what has helped erode at what could be the resources to maintain the work of a media critic, superfluous or not, which is why it’s especially hysterical that Howard Kurtz left the Post for The Daily Beast before they could lay him off (not that they ever would, because he’s on CNN, which apparently means something to someone’s inherent market value. I’m still not sure I believe this, but Tina’s paying big bucks for him. Then again, Talk, amirite?).

Thankfully, Shafer comes up with the correct answer, because even though he’s on Reliable Sources, he’s still Jack Shafer:

“That’s always been a judgement call of editors, and sometimes editors make the wrong call. My editors, for example (until I was laid off) thought that I was the best, and paid me commensurate with that assessment.”

UPDATE: I just got to the part where Shafer looks at Kurtz, and calls him “a slow-moving target who bleeds profusely when hit. Who could resist?” 

shaferrr |m|