I think Flp is lamenting the recurrence of the general topic, rather than the link itself.
Amusing quotes is rather played. I'll try not to let it happen again.
Some say that Flip is blind to the ways the media sets the agenda for public discourse. Others contend that Flip is clueless about standard media tropes that serve to obscure the facts. The truth, no doubt, is somewhere in between these extremes.
The article is not quite as stupid as this thread would have you believe. In fact it's quite entertaining,
It reads like a talk (which it was), though.
Is cauliflower nose a thing that basement-dwellers have? Like the Ghirlandaio grandfather?
The theme is one that has been gummed to death many times and many places, and yet it remains one of the the two or three most salient features of national US politics for the latter half of my lifetime. I appreciated this point from Jay Rosen deep in a thread over at CT:
The best I can explain it is: not only is it forbidden to present themselves as anything other than viewless, even-handed, disinclined to make political judgments in the conduct of their reporting, but, going further, it isn't even possible within the ideology of the mainstream political press for the people in the press to think politically about their institution, even when it's a matter of self-survival.It does basically sound like professionals at work, in almost any commercial environment (or any environment period, I guess.
If it's anything like cauliflower ear I'm going to have to downgrade my mental image of the commentariat.
Yeah, the Rosen talk isn't bad. This is interesting:
You are supposed to sacrifice and learn to report the story without attitude or bias creeping in. And then, if you succeed in disciplining yourself, you might one day get a column and earn the right to crusade for justice, to move and convince.
This is a moral hierarchy, which bloggers disrupt. They jump right to voice, which appears to mock all the years of voicelessness that mainstream journalists had suffered through
I liked that talk a lot. Thanks for pointing me to it, heebie.
IOZ has retired.
I was just thinking about the mainstream conventionality of the (big?) blogosphere, the lack of polemic, the need for acceptance within the discourse of reason, the failure to confront, offend, outrage. Marcotte and Greenwald have style, but they are still at play in the fields of the Lords. I guess there is a fear of being labelled a crank. Kunstler is just funny, and gets space because he is a fiction writer.
I used to throw links to IOZ around, and Berube read him. I am not sure, but there might be something about RL acquaintance involved, also with Proyect? Even the Marxists are too calm and ewwww objective and scientific.
The blogosphere needs some rage, libel and slander, cane beatings and civil suits. It's so fucking nice around here.
||
I'm glad to see that Nadal pulled it off against Federer (French Open). I wandered away partway through the third set and wandered back 45 minutes later to see, somewhat to my surprise but not astonishment, that Federer had taken the third set. Huh.
Didn't see much of the 4th set at all, since I had a sinking feeling that this was going to go to even sets, and then good lord. But 4th set went 6-1 Nadal. Huh again. What happened to Federer in the 4th set? Did Nadal just keep hammering at his backhand?
I'm pleased about this in any case. Clay is Nadal's medium, and while he's often treated by commentators as inexplicably scrappy, this is insufficiently respectful: Federer may seem a freaking machine, but the conditions on a clay court -- after rain midway through the match in this case -- are variable enough that Federer isn't awesome at adapting and Nadal is.
Not that I'm biased.
|>
I like the bloggy line:"Well, we caught her in an exaggeration, some distortion of the facts, a lack of citations and references, and a shortage of evidence, and her argument was just a little weak. I don't think I need to read her anymore."
Do we think we are different?
16: The problem with writers who hate their audience is that eventually the audience stops reading, no matter how accurate or humorous it is.
17: I was rooting for Federer this time although not strongly. Nadal's defense was simply incredible at times, lunging defensive lobs landing within inches of the baseline. I'm not sure that anyone else in the history of tennis does not lose that first set to Roger. Glad it was a least a match, I would have been annoyed if Federer took out Djokovic* and then not made it interesting. In the 4th set, Federer made a good run at a break, but Nadal just stood firm, got a break himself and about halfway through Roger just sagged; forehands into the net while Nadal picked it up.
*His bulling his way into the Nadal/Federer duopoly is one of the more unexpected and compelling sport's narratives in awhile. Interesting to see how he bounces back.
||
The women's final was pretty entertaining yesterday, two compelling players, good play and small bit of drama.
|>
I found IOZ so very, very irritating. I dutifully clicked over to it every time Jim Henley linked to it, but I almost always regretted it.
about halfway through Roger just sagged; forehands into the net while Nadal picked it up.
It's not my imagination that clay is especially physically challenging, is it? A great deal of lunging and skidding and necessarily balletic moves: Nadal made Federer lunge and reach a great deal (making use of the high bounce on clay, to Federer's backhand). Federer made quite a few unforced errors.
I regret that I didn't see the Djokovic/Federer match. I clued in about it only at the last moment. Djokovic seems very interesting: supposedly went on a gluten-free diet in the last year, which he claims made all the difference. Don't know any ins and outs about Federer's approach to beating him, or what Djokovic's particular strengths are: indefatigable? Incredible on first serve? Amazing game at net?
I found IOZ so very, very irritating
Unusually style found I prose convoluted satisfaction and with infused annoying sense self.
23: I think on clay, Nadal "uses" the sliding to his advantage*, whereas most other players try to minimize it or just sort of accommodate it.
Djokovic has a big consistent serve (although he is not one of the truly overwhelming guys) and has almost all of the shots in his arsenal (can do baseline or net as well as good defense and drop shots--none really stands out, but none is really week). Moves well, although not as athletic as a Nadal. The knocks on him had been conditioning and mental toughness--the biggest change I've seen this year has been the former and I'm not sure if the latter was a real thing or just what it looks like when you run out of gas and the other guy hasn't (especially if they are named Federer or Nadal).
*In the last set he got to one of Roger's drops with a controlled slide for the last x feet so that he almost immediately stopped and was able to quickly retreat for an overhand winner on Federer's lob. Most players (ignoring the majority who don't even get to the drop shot) would not have "managed" the clay to their advantage and would not be able to get back into position to effectively play the lob.
I always like to see Federer lose as I've formed the view he's a bit of a prick [beauty of his game not-withstanding]. I do feel a bit sorry for Murray, who is clearly a brilliant player but faced with two opponents who've consistently been more brilliant for several years, and a third who seems to be bridging the gap more effectively that he can.
I think on clay, Nadal "uses" the sliding to his advantage*, whereas most other players try to minimize it or just sort of accommodate it.
Right. I was mildly annoyed at commentators for failing to appreciate just how much that should be admired. A gentlemanly game in which both parties try to minimize or accommodate it is ultimately boring: I'll take Nadal's clay game any day.
On Djokovic, that doesn't sound like an emerging narrative on his game as yet, except for maybe the consistent part, which is no small task. Wish I'd seen his game with Federer. Maybe he'll be at Wimbledon.
clearly a brilliant player but faced with two opponents who've consistently been more brilliant for several years, and a third who seems to be bridging the gap more effectively that he can.
Yeah. Has tennis always been like that? A biggish gap -- not insurmountable but not neck-and-neck -- between the top couple of seeds and everyone else?
It can't just be due to skill and athleticism: also a function of how the tournament circuit and training and funding work? I don't know for sure.
28: The game-set-match structure tends to magnify skill differences.
Although that wouldn't explain why there seem to be closely matched top seeds.
Although that wouldn't explain why there seem to be closely matched top seeds.
26: I always like to see Federer lose as I've formed the view he's a bit of a prick
My wife (who is the real tennis fan in the family) and kids are exactly this. My view is that if I didn't cheer for athletes who were pricks there'd precious few left to choose among (...hmm, now there's a possible plan--nah, inconceivable).
27: On Djokovic, that doesn't sound like an emerging narrative on his game as yet
No, the emerging narrative was just that he had a 43-game winning streak (almost the best ever, I believe), cruised through the Aussie and had bested Nadal 4 straight times including in straight sets on clay at Rome after a long match the night before. The "narrative" is the unlikely possibility of someone getting in there with Roger and Rafa at all at this juncture, much less doing it in such a dominating way (until the end of this week, of course).
re: 32
Obviously they are all pretty driven, competitive, probably ego-centric people. But I've seen Federer give some really sneering disrespectful interviews when he's lost.
29: The game-set-match structure tends to magnify skill differences.
And the most compelling feature of tennis (needing to "win" rather than outlast after a good start) feeds into this as well.
had bested Nadal 4 straight times including in straight sets on clay at Rome after a long match the night before
Holy crap. I knew it was amazing, but not that amazing. Gotta see this guy play.
29: The game-set-match structure tends to magnify skill differences.
I don't understand. That's the structure of the game, and that's the game you have to master and play. ?
35: Yes, and my wife points out that it is always all about him--such as the one (Wimbledon(?) or one of the French finals(?)) where he lost and missed hitting some historic mark and was so upset that it distracted from Nadal's accomplishment in actually winning.
6: Is it disposable to spectate? It is indigestible not to.
7: The article is, indeed, very good.
One of the striking things about the traditional journalistic critique of blogging is that it's almost always done in very general terms. Blogging, however, isn't an institutional practice the way that traditional journalism is, so the critiques tend to fall into ad hominems that don't even name specific hominems.
Journalists who fall into this habit are simply bitching about the Internet, and that's a formula for obsolescence.
Rosen touches another interesting point: People like David Brooks or Thomas Friedman don't get to be columnists because of their education, insight or skill as writers. They understand the bureaucratic milieu of the New York Times and are able to exploit it - that's their key skill as colunists.
Why should I read Friedman about the Middle East when (for example) Juan Cole is available?
34 -- the breakthrough, apparently, was when he stopped eating grains.
41: Yeah, everyone is wondering about that. Also: he's gluten-free; is that the same as stopping eating grains? Are there gluten-free grains?
Are there gluten-free grains?
Most are.
re: 42
Rice, oats (controversial), buckwheat, quinoa, gram flour, etc. Although they aren't all always produced in a gluten-free workflow.
Amaranth & quinoa, though they aren't technically grains.
They may not be grains, but they're still bullshit.
Since this is the sports thread, am I the only one with a crush on Doris Burke?
43-45: I hope Halford understands this difference, then.
Quinoa is really great, as is bulghur wheat (alt. spellings available, what ttaM calls buckwheat).
as is bulghur wheat (alt. spellings available, what ttaM calls buckwheat).
What? I thought bulghur wheat was basically wheat and buckwheat was basically not wheat.
48 Yes, unless it's some Scottish version of the Corn thing.
Oh. Really? Um, yeah, it seems like buckwheat is not the same as bulgur wheat. (Now reading the wikipedia entry for buckwheat. I should get more better straight on these things.)
Apologies.
Yeah, buckwheat has no gluten. Used in some Japanese noodles, and blinis, some French pancakes, among other things. Bulgur wheat, on the other hand, is a processed wheat grain, so isn't gluten-free.
Gluten isn't everything that's wrong with grains.
re: 53
Yeah. Maybe krupice, too? Although I'm not sure, maybe that's made from a wheat grain.
Got it.
Meanwhile, vaguely ill-making, after half an hour of simmering: my housemate has just returned from a round of moving the valuable accoutrements of the wealthy about. (He works off and on for a fine art moving company.) The word from Nantucket is: well, lobster risotto with asparagus and shitaake mushrooms, topped with fresh flounder, is terrific. And the Sc/aifes are filthy rich.
Eventually I just said, Yes, well, 40% of the wealth of this country is held by 1% of the population.
My housemate just said: I can't take it seriously, I can only joke about it.
Grains are responsible for the uneven distribution of wealth in the US.
Speaking of the oligarchy/aristocracy, has everyone heard about this "New College of the Humanities" that was just announced, which will charge twice the new maximum British tuition (£18k), and "will follow a business model that will deliver profits to shareholders that include professors and a group of investors"?
It feels like the inevitable next step, what with the Coalition's education policy, but it still took me aback. Not that I know enough about UK higher ed to really say anything about it.
60: With an assist from Condoleezza Rice.
Rice isn't a grain. Rice is a fruit.
Ketchup is a grain, or was during the 80s.
Eventually I just said, Yes, well, 40% of the wealth of this country is held by 1% of the population.
My housemate just said: I can't take it seriously, I can only joke about it.
These remembrances may make you feel a bit better, perhaps. Hard to imagine someone who could have done more for his city, and for humanity, with his wealth.
In addition to all of the open-space preservation, arts and culture, and children's causes, he was also a bold supporter of the Rev. Leon Sullivan's Opportunities Industrialization Center in the days when it was not common for white businessmen to even voice support, much less donate money.
Nope, didn't make me feel better.
Would you like to move next door to Apo?
59: I can't say this reflects well on Dawkins. And Steven Pinker? Good heavens. Niall Ferguson and Grayling I'm less familiar with.
I'm a little surprised that Ronald Dworkin is involved --
64: I'm afraid I don't know who that is. It doesn't make me feel better, no. Private funding for various worthy enterprises doesn't really mitigate the egregious disparity of wealth at hand in this country, and worldwide.
Huh. Touchstone has apparently made a movie based on Rock em, Sock em Robots.
My feeling is that the most effective form of charity by wealthy people seeking to help make things better in this country is political funding in a broad sense of the term.
71: That is probably also what the wealthy people who own media corporations think.
71: Funding of left-leaning media organizations and, I suppose, lobbying. The whole thing makes me feel slightly ill, however. Fuck capitalism.
I agree with Witt. Not that media and lobbying don't matter, but if you have six tons of cash, give some of your own first.
71 I suspect that my definition of making things better is a bit different than most of theirs.
75: I get that, but I have to say that my first desire, as a swing state voter, is to tell everybody running for office to relax a bit. I've tried saying that I would vote for Hitler if I got called again, but it didn't work.
Political funding in the broad sense of the term.*
I don't mean to imply that private philanthropy is the solution to wealth inequities. I am saying that when you are the beneficiary of wealth inequities, there are various ways you can dispose of that wealth, and that some of those ways go beyond ameloriating ill effects and into supporting structural change in your society.
*It is not lost on me that Wikipedia does not have an entry for OIC.
But then, I'm a complainer. I suppose I should be grateful for the attention.
70: I want to make a 3 hour biopic of Felix Dzerzhinsky. Who wants to set up the Kickstarter page for me?
You're into psychopathic Polish aristocrats?
Probably apocryphal story: Gen. de Gaulle is on a state visit to Poland in the sixties and is talking to a Politburo member.
PM: Have you noticed we have no statues of Lenin in Warsaw?
CDG: Perhaps, but you've got a huge statue of Feliks Dzierżyński in the center of the city.
PM: Yes, a statue of the Pole who killed the most Russians.
WSJ article on Djokovic's run to the top and his diet. It does seem that he was diagnosed with a gluten allergy so to the extent the diet is involved it might be the specific absence of those symptoms.
81: I just think his story is one of the most poignant of all of the Bolsheviks. You could say a lot, I think, about why and how Bolshevism betrayed the revolution, by looking at Dzerzhinsky's life. I think it would be harder, if not impossible, to do that if you focused on Lenin or Trotsky.
I don't know much about British higher education either, but 59 looks pretty suspect. And the fact that the one physical scientist involved is Law/rence Kra/uss doesn't exactly inspire much confidence, although since none of their degree programs are in the sciences, I guess it doesn't mean much.
To the OP: If you want some trenchant in the moment analysis of the political media, the woman reputed to be the intended recipient of the tweet from Weiner's account is kicking ass. "If you want to know my position on this whole thing," she added late Friday, "I suggest avoiding @Newyorkpost and @politico. It's pure slop."
I am saying that when you are the beneficiary of wealth inequities, there are various ways you can dispose of that wealth, and that some of those ways go beyond ameloriating ill effects and into supporting structural change in your society.
I guess, but it's not like any of us is likely to be in that position relative to the scale of inequalities we're seeing now.
83 Why do you say that? (Not a rhetorical question) I guess I can see it relative to Lenin who was always deeply authoritarian, but Trotsky, like Dzierzynski, had a more ambiguous past. If you're really interested in the pre-Bolshevik era Feliks, you might want to check out Norman Naimark's Feliks Dzierzynski and the SDKPiL. Not the most gripping book, but plenty of info on his pre WWI political career in the context of late partition Polish politics. In the fun coincidence department, Dzierzynski was a high school classmate of Jozef Pilsudski, who would be one of his chief rivals in the rather fractious turn of the century Polish underground socialist scene and later dictator of Poland in the interwar period.
Trotsky was completely inconsistent after 1917 because once he and the rest of the Mezhrayonka joined the Bolsheviks (which probably seemed a practical decision in the heat of the moment), he succumbed to stupid Leninolatry without ever really internalising Leninist ideology. So his later stuff careens wildly between idealising the Bolsheviks and some quite interesting and original ideas which had nothing to do with them. One of the reasons the 4th International was a bust from the get go was that he never really made up his mind whether he wanted it to be Bolshevik or Mezhrayonkist.
Apparently, during the civil war he briefly argued that Makhno should be given qualified support just to see what would happen. This would be one of his worse ideas.
Which leads us to this:
"I envision tens of millions of people in an Apple or a Google country," where the high-tech giants would govern and residents would have no vote. "If people are allowed to opt in or out, you can have a successful dictatorship," the goateed Friedman says, wiggling his toes in pink Vibram slippers.
Were Dzierzynski and Pilsudski friends at school, or were they rehearsing the war even then?
46.2 Surely you're not, though I was not taken with last night's look. Her glasses were nice but there was something weird about her poufy hair. But I only saw her first on-screen appearance due to baby bedtime, so I don't have much of an informed opinion and don't have any sort of crush on her anyway.
It does basically sound like professionals at work, in almost any commercial environment (or any environment period, I guess.
Indeed. I've argued before that American journalism went astray when it started viewing itself as a profession, rather than a job or a calling. It does have the benefit, I suppose, that journalism pays a lot better in the US than over here, but I don't think it's benefited readers at all.
89 Neither. Pilsudski was a little bit older and already involved in radical politics, partly through his brother who was part of the group that killed the czar.
93
It does have the benefit, I suppose, that journalism pays a lot better in the US than over here
Really? As an ex-journalist, I have the impression that journalism pays crap, and my experience backs that up. (The "ex" part is not due to the money or anything else about the profession, I moved to another state for personal reasons and the first job offer I got happened to be in another field, but the higher salary sure is a nice bonus.) Anecdata is weak evidence, but a cursory google search (slightly stronger evidence, but only slightly) backs me up:
Average Salary of Jobs Matching Your Search
In USD as of Jun 6, 2011, Journalist $43,000
Average Journalist salaries for job postings nationwide are 42% lower than average salaries for all job postings nationwide.
It's entirely possible that the salaries are even worse in the UK, but it seems more likely to me that the average is about the same, adjusting for cost of living and all that, but there's even more of a celebrity culture of journalism in the US than over there. Tom Friedman is independently wealthy and Davids Brooks and Broder go on book tours and probably get paid to make TV appearances and stuff, while the beat reporters who may one day aspire to that lifestyle make crap for the first 30 years unless they manage to become part of the story themselves.
This makes the bloggers vs. journalist thing look like part of the class struggle narrative: the Haves turn different kinds of Have-nots against each other. Union vs. scabs, blacks vs. Hispanics, still-paying-their-"dues" journalists vs. ad-supported bloggers.
I basically agree with the fundamental left-blog critique of the mass political media that's been around since Bob Somerby and Atrios. And I like the blog format. And yet, as awful as it is, I probably learn 50x as much daily from reading the NYT and LAT as I do from looking around various blogs, and the newspapers are generally more reliable. And, the most useful blogs for conveying information, like TPM or Ezra Klein, are done by full-time professional journalists. I think blog triumphalism has long since faded as a meme, and with good reason.
Not very relevant, but I feel bad for sounding like I'm dismissive of Doris Burke. I love that there's a woman covering men's games in a meaningful way, especially enjoyed listening to her during the men's NCAA tournament. I don't find her particularly appealing, but I'm sure she and her husband are fine with that. I'm not one for celebrity or visual crushes anyway.
Now we just need women coaching and reffing men's basketball since there's absolutely no reason they're less physically (or otherwise) qualified than many of the men doing the job. I'm sure everyone in the room when I give that lecture absolutely enjoys it!
It's entirely possible that the salaries are even worse in the UK
They are. Freelance rates are about a third to a quarter of what they are in the US (healthcare costs etc account for some of the difference, but by no means all). Starting salaries at most places are in the low teens. I do more than OK after 10 years in highly specialised financial journalism, but most of my music journalist friends struggle to get by despite the fact that some hold senior positions for very high profile national publications. It's basically impossible to earn enough to get by starting out in London, which is why the press these days is almost exclusively staffed by middle class people who can lean on their parents for several years.
97.2: Shockingly, MMA is ahead of the major sports in this department, employing one prominent female ref. (Unfortunately, she isn't very good. OTOH, neither are most of the others.)
By the way, am I missing an exciting/tedious stramash in the Women Do Stupid Stuff thread, or is it just a 700 comment open thread?
98: Huh. I should ask Buck, but one of his jobs is working for a UK publication, and my impression has been that salaries within the same organization are higher for UK based journos than for Americans because the UK market rate is higher. But I may be confused, or this may be a quirk of the IT journalism market specifically.
100: There were a couple of distinct kerfuffles in there, but it's settled down to an open thread. If either weight/body image or neighborly behavior with respect to making noise interests you, thats what the arguments were about.
99: I would not otherwise have known that! I'm really not a sports fan and care more about integration at the lower levels than among the pros. To the extent I care at all, it's on principle rather than because it would change my viewing habits or anything.
I am also in favor of Doris Burke striking a strong blow for women with names like Doris, so there's that.
If either weight/body image or neighborly behavior with respect to making noise interests you, thats what the arguments were about.
Huh. I should ask Buck, but one of his jobs is working for a UK publication, and my impression has been that salaries within the same organization are higher for UK based journos than for Americans because the UK market rate is higher. But I may be confused, or this may be a quirk of the IT journalism market specifically.
Some UK publications have a separate (higher) rate for US based writers (a href="http://www.londonfreelance.org/rates/w1000mag.html">see here for examples), which may be where that's coming from. Alternatively it could be a currency conversion issue. The pound may be nominally worth more than a dollar, but it probably doesn't get you as far as a dollar, especially living in London. £400pm gets you a room in a shared flat in one of the less desirable parts of outer London. Transport from said flat to central London costs on the order of £120pm.
But a sterling-based salary/rate for someone living in the US is another matter and could look quite attractive.
Gah. My response to 104.1 was supposed to be: "Not particularly."
When a man gets tired of the less desirable part of outer London, a man is tired of life.
106: Shush, do you want to quadruple their suicide rate?
By the way, am I missing an exciting/tedious stramash in the Women Do Stupid Stuff thread, or is it just a 700 comment open thread?
It's stayed on topic but the nature of the stupid stuff that women do has now shifted to "yoga" and "irritating their neighbors with loud music".
It's basically impossible to earn enough to get by starting out in London, which is why the press these days is almost exclusively staffed by middle class people who can lean on their parents for several years.
From my own experience as a London-based hack, it's possible to be entirely self-supporting from day one, but you have to be lucky in getting a fairly good (ie well-paid) first job in a fairly technical area, find fairly cheap shared accommodation, and prepared to eat quite a lot of lentils while you wait for your pay to ramp up.
And yet, as awful as it is, I probably learn 50x as much daily from reading the NYT and LAT as I do from looking around various blogs, and the newspapers are generally more reliable.
Really? With a few exceptions, I find that blogs routinely "scoop" the proper news media (including the BBC) and often offer better analysises as well. Not to mention that blogs are often have better memories as well and are less tied to the official line on "historical" events. The War on Iraq being the worst example of this, where the newspapers and tv bulletins were all v. v. respectful and Serious about the case for war, the antiwar blogs were right from the start, but it all got swept into a memory hole with the official line being it was a noble, but flawed enterprise and nobody knew how bad it would be. Yet there we were...
Newspapers don't only contain establishmentarian punditry on news, Martin; they contain news as well.
With a few exceptions, I find that blogs routinely "scoop" the proper news media (including the BBC) and often offer better analysises as well.
[citation needed].
I learn about a lot of news from blogs first, but the blogs are generally citing news media, just news media I haven't seen yet. On things like (say) the Yeonpyeong island incident or the war in Libya, the proper news media has been IT for news, with blogs coming in for (some very good) aggregation and commentary.
I find blogs good for getting up to speed on things I haven't been following (newspapers could do the same if they did a better job on linking to old stories) and for getting interpretation and analysis/context (though newspapers do that too, in a narrower range usually).
But I find reporting-driven blogs more useful than news articles for up-to-date/ongoing stuff (when it falls in their reporting areas) and both newspaper websites and non-paper news sites run those kinds of blogs, so, the line isn't so clear cut, blah blah, etc. etc.
From my own experience as a London-based hack, it's possible to be entirely self-supporting from day one, but you have to be lucky in getting a fairly good (ie well-paid) first job in a fairly technical area, find fairly cheap shared accommodation, and prepared to eat quite a lot of lentils while you wait for your pay to ramp up.
Well, yes, hence "basically". I mean, I was self supporting once I moved to London, but only only because I got my foot in the door at a technical publication while I was living with my parents and my first landlord was the father of one of my flatmates and thus fairly generous when I was late with the rent. But I wouldn't advise anyone who doesn't have the possiblity of external support to try to be a journalist in London, and that's fucked up.
I don't think I'd advise anyone who doesn't have either the possibility of external support or an existing confirmed job offer to try to be anything at all in London.
True enough, but media jobs are disproportionately concentrated in London, which doesn't help matters. And the regional press seems to go through savage rounds of costcutting every 5 years or so these days.
98, 109, 114 et seq: There is some variant on "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded." hiding in this, but I can't tease it out.
I think it's increasingly hard to be anything interesting at all, especially in the SE of England, without substantial financial and social capital behind you. Part of the reëncuntification of our society.
I think it's increasingly hard to be anything interesting at all.
I think it's increasingly hard.