I'm terribly behind on reviewing the movies that I have seen in recent months, so I'll quickly recap: HP6 was terrific, and one of my favorites from the series. Julie & Julia was breezy and cute, and made me hungry. 500 Days of Summer was a really interesting movie; an equally funny and painful look at what makes relationships begin and end. And Race to Witch Mountain was a harmless adventure for kids that was almost worth the cost of the rental. Almost.
Last night Wendy and I watched State of Play, a suspenseful and intelligent conspiracy thriller set in the intriguing backdrop of the current (dying) state of print journalism. The ensemble cast is fantastic: Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Jeff Daniels, Helen Mirren, Rachel McAdams, Robin Wright Penn, Jason Bateman, all of whom are given a moment or two to shine. It's a terrific little mystery and one that--despite a couple of obligatory Hollywood cliches--doesn't insult our intelligence. If you haven't seen it already, it's definitely a nice way to spend an evening.
When all was said and done, what lingered with me the most was what appears to be the pending death of the newspaper industry, which is losing relevance admidst the almost-instantaneous (and free) news currently available via the internet. I've often spoken of my favorite TV critic, USA Today's Robert Bianco. Though he seems to be reluctantly embracing the electronic transition of print journalism, he never misses an opportunity to remind his readers to pony up the $.75 to buy a printed copy of the paper.
I love a good newspaper. I love the smell, the way the print smudges on my fingers, the way I can hide behind its pages and educate myself. But I'm also a pragmatist: I don't like the clutter of having a stack of newspapers that needs to be recycled, and I don't like having to pay for something I can get for free online. And therein lies one of the many conundrums of our modern-day, information-rich generation: we want as much information as we can get, and as quickly as possible (Twitter, anyone?), but we don't want to pay for it. It's a wonder that any newspapers (or magazines, for that matter) are still in business.
Within the context of last night's movie, the real, quality journalism only occurred with the marriage of the traditional vs. the electronic media. But it makes me wonder: is there a price that our society is paying for all the free information we now have access to? Is the product becoming diluted or less trustworthy? Or has the push for urgency made the information the same or even better than it once was?
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'm so glad you brought this up. I've been thinking about this a lot lately. "Fast" journalism (television, most on-line stuff) is just that: fast. But they're not taking time to do time-involved investigative reporting. Stuff like outing companies who dump toxic waste near the suburbs or finding loopholes in a politician's spending. This is what we'll lose when we lost print. But it's such a tough call, as you point out. Why pay for a paper when you can go online for free? But you can't peruse online like you can a paper. It's just not the same...alas, alas.
Loved the flick (we rented it last weekend); love a fresh newspaper. Good review. :)
Speaking of newspaper, there is an article about James, Emily and Cass in the lifestyle section of the Deseret News. (I think?)
Post a Comment