Comments

Poignant, but if no one reads the newspaper what difference does it make?

Our newspapers have become irrelevant so culture suffers.

Newspapers will always be a part of our culture, whether in hard copy or online form. The things that sell those papers and ads really do have to be heard loud and clear by the publishers and indeed it is up to us to make that happen. Your writing is eloquent and touches on a major sore spot I feel for our culture. The more we teach, the more we respond to this arts editors 'firing' issue, the more we actively cultivate the beautiful aspects of classical music, our greater collective voice for what is able to elevate society will be heard. The more newspapers come to resemble advertising circulars, the less relevant they become. Music criticism is one of those areas where a newspaper shows its discernment and expertise, in other words, something of value that readers can't get just anywhere. Yet newspaper owners and management stand bewildered and ask, does it sell newspapers?

Well, let's look at another example: The gift shop at Disney World makes money, but the castle doesn't. So tear down the castle! It's a losing proposition: you have to clean it every day and paint it every year...and how much money did it take to put that fancy schmantzy mosaic in the castle, and how many people really look closely at it? Keep the gift shops, lose the castle. And for that matter, the carousel doesn't make money either....

I do think that journalism will survive in some form, and maybe even some of the larger/better media outfits will morph into new media. Whatever happens, I'd like the art of music criticism to survive in some manner, and I believe it is up to those of us who can articulate the value of this kind of journalism to make a stink about it.

At least in the old "if it bleeds it leads" days you knew what was determining the lead. In my opinion current journalists - at least in Australia - have diminished most journalism into a fairly cheap circus. Anyone, it sometimes seems, who represents a dissenting voice is pushed away or not given a job. It is really 'in' in journalism, for instance, to believe in 'science by consensus': the science of "we are the cool scientists, not the uncool ones, and what we say is how it is. Listen to us or you, too, will not be cool like we are". Journalists have bought into this scam.

The very fabric of good journalism and good science is thus eroded. The unclean love affair between what journalists now call 'science' and 'journalism', in our time, has diminished both disciplines. It is science by: "it's like this, baby, 'cause we just said so", not science by scientific method. So if newspapers etc are suffering, it is largely the fault of the journalists.

Historically, the institution of the church in the West weakened itself by abusing its power and influence. We see the same happening now to jouralism and science.

Very true what you write about the importance of the local music critic.