I landed on their website the other day and it opened a full page chumbox[0] which completely obscured their real content.
I’ve no knowledge of Rolling Stone magazine’s history or its current fortunes, but I could tell immediately that - if they valued their own content and their users so poorly and were that desperate to make a buck - they are totally screwed.
Worth noting: this isn't itself a discussion of where Rolling Stone has been and is now, it's a review of "Sticky Fingers" a newly released book about Rolling Stone and founder Jan Wenner.
It's written by someone who had been asked multiple times to write the biography but the deal fell through. He also consulted with the author prior to his writing the book. It strikes me as less a review and more a discussion about the circumstances of its writing with a lot of backstory about Rolling Stone. He praises the book, but doesn't give much of a review beyond that. It contextualizes the book more than it reviews it.
rolling stone still periodically has excellent longform investigative journalism by matt taibbi, which is the only thing i've ever been interested in by them (but i'm way too young to have been there for its peak)
Jann Wenner was always more interested in "the good life" than in good journalism. It's just that in the 60s and early 70s the climate was such that RS had to give a unique brand of the latter to survive.
Something I've always wondered about Rolling Stone: Is it possible for a magazine to objectively cover society and culture, provide insightful commentary, but without pushing an agenda of its own?
Even if one claims "no agenda" one can stil find an editorial agenda. When you choose to highlight someone way out st the edge of the Overton window (ahem), how do you treat them? And how far from the current "center" do you cast your net for stories?
Fuck that. Everyone has a bias. Admit it. Let your readers know who you’re pulling for. Let them know who’s paying to keep the lights on at the offices and how much of a blind eye you have to turn to any interesting misdeeds those folks may perpetrate.
(And in that spirit: I have lately taken to half-jokingly calling myself a "social justice witch". So now you can get an idea of my biases. What're yours, which way do you want to pull the thing you named yourself after?)
I wouldn't mind that actually! My first response to your comment was to say "In the Morning to YOu!" and the second was to smile at the pun. I wouldn't mind if a journalist puts at the bottom of their reporting So and So is a registered republican, and votes for xyz in the last presidential election. Etc. I would feel so much, much better about of the news, because then I can start to understand which news I can trust, and which to be wary of, but being me, I'd read it all anyways.
No, because there is no such thing as "objective". Everybody has and everybody should have a point of view.
At best, what's considered "objective" is taking the more accepted worldview of your time, and reporting things while believing it some kind of law of nature -- in other words, that your reporting is just truth distilled, without any worldview involved. But there is always a worldview.
If on the other hand, you mean that despite having a worldview, you can still be reporting what (according to it) are bad things whether Trump or Clinton does them, or whether neo-nazis or antifa does them, or whether Weinstein or an angry PC mob does them, in other word, if it's possible not to be partisan, but an equal opportunity offender, then, yes, this is possible.
The job would be made even easier if Rolling Stone went back to being about music, though, and tried to avoid talking about Trump or Clinton, and the like, except where strictly necessary for talking about music.
One of Hunter S Thompson's most famous works was a series of articles in Rolling Stone covering the 1972 presidential election of Nixon/McGovern. It was good stuff, very readable, and yet he was clearly biased towards McGovern (which was clearly an unpopular opinion as he ended up losing in one of the biggest landslide loses in presidential history).
Nothing wrong with their writers being political or biased. The bigger problem is whether they can talk about politics without being heavy handed, preachy, or trite, like much of politics being pigeon-holed into all forms of media today.
It seems many journalists today have lost their sense of humour and everything is overly serious and self-important. Especially when compared to the writings of HST vs what they put out today.
"Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" is probably the best thing HST ever wrote. Find it, read it, don't take it all completely seriously, and you may learn something.
Rolling Stone was never solely about music, they always ran political reporting. In fact I would argue it's legacy is more known for the work of Hunter S. Thompson than their musical coverage.
The only times the magazine has gained interests has been solely due to their journalists and what they cover, rarely if ever music.
The thing is though, RS was never just about the music. In the late 60s/early 70s, music and politics were both huge topics for youth culture, and RS covered both.
E.g. Hunter Thompson's coverage of the '72 presidential race.
Music isn't created in a vacuum though. A lot of music/movies/books are created as a reflection of what is happening in the world around us, and makes a lot less sense without context.
Lets say there was a news program that had no anchors, no reporters, and only broadcasts “primary” sources: surveillance footage, legal documents, firsthand accounts, testimony under oath, etc.
There would still be an implicit agenda based on what they choose to include and ignore.
No. First, "neutrality" is itself an agenda. Second, even dedicating yourself to some ideal of balance or data-driven journalism or another "objective" standard, editorial choices are still required to direct limited resources--money, column inches--that will inevitably reflect the publication's perspective on what's important and what's not.
It's completely reasonable to objectively cover anything. There will always be bias in what is covered, but there need not be in how it is covered. The media of the past used to excel at this. This [1] is the New York Times coverage of Watergate in 1972 just before the election. It's extremely well sourced, makes relatively minimal use of anonymous sources, and gives all facts and data without labeling, judgement, or anything of the sort. I have no way of even telling the political proclivities of the writer. Compare that to modern media, including what the NYT has turned into, and it's simply sad.
I think a big part of what has changed is that that the traditional media is now competing with social media. Instead of relying on newspaper subscriptions, they rely on digital advertising. And so they desperately need clicks. What gets more clicks, a calm and collected coverage entitled "The Watergate Mystery" or a hyperbolic piece full of sensationalism, characterizations, and drama entitled "Nixon implicated in criminal enterprise and secret surveillance."
In this case it turns out that Nixon was indeed guilty, so the hyperbole might not seem so unreasonable. Instead of that take things such as the New York Times coverage of the rape allegations targeting the Duke lacrosse team. [2][3][4]. Read those articles, the headlines, and the implications. The second article ([3]) implies it was inappropriate for the players to even be continuing to practice as if nothing had happened - though in fact, nothing had. The ending of that story is sordid, but the gist is that the entire event was found to be completely and literally fake. Not as in a 'it happened, but not like that' but literally - it did not happen, at all. The NYT assumed their guilt and wrote accordingly - because their goal has changed from informing a captive audience to competing for the clicks of an audience with no attention span, marginal quality requirements, and an insatiable lust for drama. I absolutely hope the recent attempts by the NYT to paywall their content are a resounding success.
The point I'm getting at is that 'clean journalism' is obviously entirely possible, but it's much more difficult to monetize. Digital ads are easy. Put some ads, get some clicks, profit. But this system also forces people to compete at the lowest common denominator. And even not for profit organizations with government funding still need to earn money to stay afloat. For instance even NPR has turned towards more clickbaity typical articles. However, that turn happened only after multiple rounds of downsizing. Competition can bring out the best in many industries, but it can also bring out the worst in others.
I’ve no knowledge of Rolling Stone magazine’s history or its current fortunes, but I could tell immediately that - if they valued their own content and their users so poorly and were that desperate to make a buck - they are totally screwed.
[0]https://www.theawl.com/2015/06/a-complete-taxonomy-of-intern...