A look at the creative process (Hint: beer goggles might help)
After publication of "Strange Days: Our 12th Annual Roundup of the Idiotic, the Ironic and the Just Plain Weird," frequent N&R blog commenter Bruce Raynor wrote JR (and cc'd me):
01.06.05,03.06.05,04.13.05,06.13.05,09.13.05,10.1/.05,11.24.05 and 08.22.05, 08.24.05.These are dates in your 12.30.05 “THE IDIOTIC…’05” article involving things done, said, or about Republicans and a conservative religious leader. I cannot argue with their inclusion.
What I find strange (but not surprising) is that you did not include any of the many available appropriate inclusions from Democrats and ACLU types.
You continually indicate that you want to represent the community but more often than not fail to do so by your one-sided presentations.
It'd be nice if the process of creating a "Strange Days" column were as simple as Raynor thinks it is. It'd also be a lot less work. (Not that I'm complaining -- getting to do this feature every year is one of the nicest parts of my job.)
But since Raynor raised the issue, and since we're supposed to be all about the transparency here, I'm happy to share with you the conscious/subconscious thought processes that influence what the final column looks like. I'm not going to swear to you that this explanation is complete, simply because of the subconscious part, but after doing this 12 years running, I think I've got a pretty good handle on what happens.
I gather raw material almost every day, all year. My sources include the N&R's section fronts and its wire services, along with stuff I see on TV or hear on the radio (both broadcast and satellite) and the couple of dozen news-related Web sites I visit every day, and weird-news features on such Web sites as Yahoo!, Salon.com (excellent celebrity-gossip column) and Ananova.com. I also stumble on links to potential items while reading blogs. (Did I mention that I get paid, in part, to read blogs? Is this a great country or what?)
The published version typically runs 75 or 80 column-inches -- about two-thirds of a standard newspaper page in our standard type size -- but the initial list I compile every year runs more like 500 before I start cutting. (Why not run the whole thing on the Internet? you ask. Several reasons, but the biggest is that, upon reflection, a lot of it simply turns out not to be funny.)
Deciding what to use and what not to use is not a rigidly analytical process. The factors I *consciously* weigh include (in no particular order or proportion):
As the feature has evolved, it has come to rely less upon the inherent humor of a news item and more upon whatever headline I can come up for it. That wasn't a conscious decision, although in hindsight I'm glad I have gone in that direction because it makes the feature more of a challenge.
So how do I write the headlines? Sometimes an appropriate (i.e., at least quasi-funny) headline for an item occurs to me at the time I stumble across the item (or is supplied by the item source). Most of the time, though, I have to come up with them on my own, usually during a mad rush in December. (Co-workers help out to some extent, but in December they're mostly busy with their own work; if you don't like one, blame me, not them.)
Is the feature politically biased, as Raynor believes? It's not intended to be. I understand that that answer won't satisfy a lot of readers, however. Upon more reflection, I think that the feature's preference for hypocrisy, combined with the fact that, at least nationally, Republicans are running everything, yielded the current year's mix of items about which Raynor complains. But I also would point out that most of the items in this year's feature aren't political.
In the first Strange Days, the 1994 edition (actually published Jan. 1, 1995) and the only one published before Republicans officially took over Congress, the piece took shots at:
-- Republicans Oliver North, Robert Moores (then a Guilford County commissioner) and Jesse Helms.
-- Democrats Bill Clinton, Dan Rostenkowski and Earl Jones.
-- Then-Craven County Commissioner Gerald Parker, whose political affiliation isn't mentioned and presumably was unrelated to his alleged taste for trafficking in marijuana and cocaine.
-- Lyndon LaRouche, whose nominal political affiliation is less important than the fact that he communicates telepathically with squid.
It also took several shots at the county commissioners as a group, and at journalists, both singly and in large groups. Most subsequent installments have done the same, to a greater or lesser degree, and near as I can recall, no one has had a problem with that.
Raynor also takes exception to my mocking Pat Robertson without some sort of balancing criticism of a religious figure on the political left. I've covered Robertson off and on for almost 20 years, beginning with my PTL coverage for this newspaper in 1987-1990 and continuing during my tenure as religion writer in the late 1990s. And the problem with Raynor's complaint is that there is no religious figure on the political left with the influence and reach of Robertson, let alone a figure with that influence who says half the strange stuff Robertson says. The closest you could come probably would be Jesse Jackson, and Jackson was pretty quiet -- indeed, uncharacteristically so -- during 2005.
I'm less bothered by accusations of partisan bias, however, than I am by the notion that some people are going through a feature like this looking for bias of any sort. Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Humor is inherently subjective. Things that I find funny, you might not. My sense of humor was shaped by influences including but not limited to Jonathan Swift, Steven Wright ("You never know what you have 'til it's gone. I wanted to know what I had, so I got rid of everything."), Dave Barry, Richard Preyer, Monty Python's Flying Circus and a genetic disposition toward certain conditions that might fall, if you want to get all technical about it, under the rubric of "mental illness." And more often than I like to think about, something that strikes me as funny does so in significant part because it's also something I've done before, or at least come very close to doing.
I guess that's a long way of saying that anybody who claims to report objectively on humor is lying and anyone who is looking for political bias in a feature of this type might well find what looks like some but is missing a much larger and, I hope, more entertaining point.
Well. That's probably way more than you wanted to know about Strange Days. That said, 2006 has begun, which means I've begun gathering string for Strange Days XIII. If you see something you think should be included, by all means let me know.
Comments (17)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Your explanation would be laughable if it weren't so maddening.
You OBVIOUSLY have a bias Lex! Your personal blog speaks volumes about how you see the world -- and it's reflected in this very, very subjective (to YOUR views) year-end round up.
To argue otherwise is completely ridiculous.
Bill Frist? Local? Republicans in charge of EVERYTHING? Have you looked at STATE politics (which -- guess what -- are more local than national politics?)
Frank Ballance PLEADS GUILTY and then has the NERVE to say at TWO Marion Barry style going-away parties that it was a CONSIPRIACY against him? Where was that one?
The Governor, a DEMOCRAT, who has wrecked a NASCAR car before, spins out a race car in front of the state capital barely missing a luxury car and having to be pushed away from the car by an improvised pit crew?
Jim Black, a DEMOCRAT, manages to get people jobs just as checks are written to him, according to the N&O. Among other things, he also has a staffer who is working as a lobbyist for a lottery company. Now he says he won't take any more from lobbyists.
How on EARTH can you argue that these OBVIOUS stories about Democrats on a STATE level were omitted just by accident?
You obviously LOVE to find problems with Republicans -- all while hiding behind the "I myself am a Republican" shield.
Keep deluding yourself Lex. This is what is leading to the slow death of newspapers...
Posted on January 3, 2006 8:09 PM
So, which of those stories makes you chuckle, Jim? Sounds like they just make you mad. Well, apart from the story about the governor, that is. *That's* funny. :)
Posted on January 4, 2006 6:38 AM
They make me laugh about as much as the stories about the Republicans...
And, many of Lex's "funny" ones aren't very funny. They are just stories about people being hypocritical...
speaking of which:
another one about Easley... in the midst of the post-hurricane gas crisis (prices around $3.20 a gallon) and the gov calling for "conservation," guess who flies down to the coast to do a ceremony about a new business bringing a few jobs to N.C.? yep, the governor... a Democrat...
I just thought of these off the top of my head -- and I don't even get PAID to do this... sad...
Posted on January 4, 2006 8:55 AM
I was aware of all those things, Jim; I just couldn't think of anything witty (at least, that *I* thought was witty) to say about them.
And there were a ton of NONpolitical items that, in the end, I couldn't think of anything witty to say about, either.
But believe what you want. And I again extend an invitation, to you and anyone else, to submit candidates for the 2006 edition.
Posted on January 4, 2006 9:14 AM
Mr. Alexander, I've seen nothing from you that is not biased against conservatives. Your bias permeates everything you write. Your personal blog is rife with harrassment, denigration, scorn, and scatalogical epithets against anyone who does not share your liberal views.
You're not a journalist, you're a leftist political commentator.
Posted on January 4, 2006 2:42 PM
You forgot the people who do not share my CONSERVATIVE views, jaycee. You're slipping.
Besides, this is the Internet. How do I know you're not a dog?
Posted on January 4, 2006 2:50 PM
Perfect response, Lex, you're proving my point with a personal attack on someone who disagrees with your liberal rants.
Posted on January 4, 2006 5:04 PM
I did not attack you, jaycee, I mocked you. Please keep up.
Also, since when has standing up for the rule of law been a liberal rant, hmm?
Posted on January 4, 2006 5:11 PM
Ah, the old Lex Alexander game of semantics...
The rule of law? When have you ever stood up for the rule of law when it didn't in some way aggrandize a Democrat or undermine a Republican?
The "rule of law" implies you do this equally... or at least PRETEND to do it equally.
I have yet to see that happen.
Posted on January 4, 2006 5:45 PM
Oh, I see, so all these times I've invoked the rule of law, when I thought I was doing it on principle I was really doing it to advance a partisan Democratic agenda? OK. Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted on January 4, 2006 9:34 PM
You're learning Lex...
Posted on January 5, 2006 9:15 AM
When one publicly mocks another, it's considered a personal attack where I come from.
You seem to think you were "appointed" to decide matters of law, as if you were a judge. What is your formal legal training, degrees held, or time spent as a judge on the bench in a court of law?
I, too, have opinions on legal issues. But I'm under no illusion that my opinion is legally correct, or that a judge and jury (which is the only arbiter) will agree with me. That's why we have a legal system. My opinion is worth about as much as yours in that arena.
Posted on January 5, 2006 9:39 AM
I'm content to let the marketplace settle that question, jaycee. But whatever.
Posted on January 5, 2006 9:43 AM
The marketplace already is...
What is the penetration of the N&R in the Greensboro market these days? What kind of a downward trend is that? (And, don't tell me circulation is up... I know that it will be because the population is growing.. but where is the **penetration**?)
How are page views to your blog? (Obviously they will increase as more and more people log on to the Internet, but is it growing at the same pace as the rest of the website?) Is it growing at a pace that is as fast as other blogs? Is it growing at all?
For that matter, what are the unique visitor numbers to the N&R website? Page views will likely increase, but what about uniques?
Posted on January 5, 2006 11:04 AM
As JR posted a few weeks back, our circulation actually is down a bit, though not as much as the industry average. Accordingly, presuming that the number of households in our market continues to increase, penetration is down as well.
Print penetration obviously doesn't tell the whole story -- what's relevant is not only that but also what kinds of inroads our online products are making. The metrics for this are still kind of primitive, but as you know, growth in online overall is healthy (albeit from a small base), and our own growth, to the best I can recall (I'm sick and blogging from home today so don't have records handy) is in line with industry trends.
Page views and unique visitors for my blog continue to grow, but that's not really relevant, inasmuch as my blog is expendable. It's the performance of our sites overall that matter, and any part that isn't carrying its weight relative to resources devoted to it would be likely to have its mission and reason for existence reassessed. (My remark to JC was more along the lines of the fact that the market has found my work [overall -- not just this blog] valuable enough to compensate me for it while, so far as I know, he/she hasn't enjoyed similar success.)
Relatedly, Jim, another commenter again raised the issue of "relevant" content on this thread. Would you care to join that conversation and offer your definition of "relevant"? Believe it or not, it would be helpful. Thanks.
Posted on January 6, 2006 11:18 AM
Lex, you're right, you don't *know* whether I'm sucessful or not, because you don't know what I do or how much I get paid. Your comment is laughable; did it have a point? Or was it just another way to slip in a barb?
Your condescending attitude towards those that disagree with you is an ugly attribute.
Posted on January 6, 2006 7:45 PM
Well, jaycee, you come in here and fling poo rather than trying to discuss ideas, so you make condescending easy. Certainly I don't know whether you have enjoyed any success in this line of work. But you have yet to offer a single insight here that would suggest even the slightest knowledge of this line of work, let alone success.
If you have something constructive to offer, by all means, bring it.
Posted on January 7, 2006 6:04 PM