Killing the Past Doesn't Help the Future (or Why I'm Tired)

Why does every article I read lately feature the death of something or the end of another thing? We keep hearing that the past is dead. Murdered by progress.  Good riddance because we'll never need it again. The hipster hordes want to stamp out the imagery and completely remake the world in their image and ideal. Is this the insecurity of my generation coming to the forefront? Or is it a younger generation living entirely in the now and wanting to stamp out nostalgia?

Media_httpwwwdocument_eaeec
 If it's the end of everything like newspapers, what will happen to those scenes in movies when the spy is sitting on a bench, passing time reading a newspaper. You know the one, the spy is waiting for his next meet up (maybe he never lowers the paper) or is using the newspaper to conceal his identity. If we kill the past, a newspaper might make the spy stand out as suspicious. It's interesting that in fiction, various technologies always look forced or dated. The iPad in someone's hands in a movie today might be this generation's version of the 70's porno mustache. Does our culture really need to move that fast and constantly be up to date?

Can we all agree to stop with the hipster aesthetic? I don't need everything to be the apex of design and functionality. It all makes me tired. Is the need to murder the past borne from the same hell that gave us jumpsuits, disco, and the pet rock? Is it the cousin of the Swatch watch and acid wash jeans?

It's accelerating. Maybe not in the way Douglas Coupland imagined, but things are getting faster and faster. On the one hand we're awash in information. It's delivered to us in both raw and curated forms: Information Democracy. On the other hand, the zombies haven't vanished. They're still here cycling through meaningless trends and the need to be first (at a much quicker pace). Instead of raising the discourse, the fad-hogs are just hungrier. The rest of us? We're just more tired. While we never worked to keep up, it's become more of an arduous task to fight it off.

So as I hear more often that I'm weird for not liking soccer or NASCAR, for continuing to read paper (instead of digital or nothing at all), for desiring open solutions to technology and information gathering (instead of choosing design or a fear of technology witchery), I'll just wish it would all slow down again. Just a little.

What do I want/believe in?
  • Not being available 24 hours a day
  • Apple is just another big tech company and is sometimes not the best option
  • Physical books and newspapers
  • Big companies should be regulated but individuals should be left alone to make (sometimes poor) decisions for themselves
  • Children should be kept out of bars but smoking should not
  • Baseball doesn't need replay but football does
  • The 1980s were the worst decade known to man and should never be celebrated
  • There is nothing wrong with a healthy does of cynicism
  • Everyone is too worried about being productive all the time

The New York Time Lens Blog

via lens.blogs.nytimes.com

I've been getting a lot of news and information from the various blogs that the New York Times offers. Often, the writing is some of the best and the writers (especially the tech and sports writers) use the forum to work out stories. One of the most beautiful blogs is the Lens blog (http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com).

Today they've showcased what people do to their bodies in pursuit of beauty (or at least the image they want in their head). Some of the pictures highlight transformations that are stunning, others that are heartbreaking. Either way, the photographs highlighted today each tell their own story and are beautiful.

Lots of Chatter but What to Say?

As a blogger, I often have aspirations of writing more and better stuff. In the past I've written about stuff that bugs me, sports, a little about travel, pop culture, etc. To be honest, most of my blogging projects fail for a myriad of reasons. Sometimes I get bored with a topic and move on. Sometimes I'm distracted by, well, life. As a writer, each of my blogs is one of my babies. While none of them have generated any kind of readership, I still look back on each of them with a little bit of protectionism. I like the idea of them.

This blog has been a lot more casual and agnostic (partly due to the ease of posting) and in some ways more successful. Despite that, I still often find myself asking, what on Earth should I write about? It seems to me this is a common thread in online writing (even when the author doesn't really think it on a conscious level).

So why do I bring this up now in my 89th post? Well, I was thinking about quality writing today in response to the New York Times' decision to begin charging for access to its website in 2011. A lot of people online were angry about it. Some of the comments I read (and I am paraphrasing) included thoughts such as:
  • I hope the NY Times fails
  • I'll get my news elsewhere
  • You're dumb
  • I'm mad and I hate the NY Times
It seems this decision just made the internet unhappy. Personally, I found myself thinking it was a good decision (and I'm cheap). Why? Well, the New York Times puts out some of the best content in the world. From straight news, to honest reporting, to up to the second blogs covering everything from baseball to books. The organization puts out an incredible amount of information and content. Additionally, this content is reliable. They're not going to publish something stupid like, "Phyllis Diller named Secretary General of the UN." Why not? Because they are stocked with professionals who pay attention to what they do.  How good are their people?  A handful of them have started examining the Times and its practices to make sure that the organization upholds its own ethics.  Really!  Check them out on Twitter @NYTPicker.

So why do they do this? It's not because they're bored. These people all have homes and families and like to eat and buy things. It's a job, just like yours or mine. The Times needs to be able to pay for its reporters, pay for its offices, and pay to send objective reporters to the far reaches of the globe.  In order to do so, it needs money. As more and more news sources evaporate it means that fewer eyes are observing for us. Fewer voices are discussing events. Consumers get crappier and crappier information. Sure, you could go to CNN.com for your free news and get as many stories about John Mayer banging actresses as you would about the Senate election in Massachusetts. 

Good information is worth paying for.  Good news is worth paying for.  Free isn't always bad, but eventually news that is driven by advertising is going to be more interested in getting eyeballs than it will be in getting the facts right. That's never good.

Times Skimmer by The New York Times

Media_httpgraphics8nytimescomimagestimesskimmerschemesserendipitypng_xfadwebjggjwhdt
via nytimes.com

Have you seen this? It's a pretty great way to read through the New York Times online. Once again, I'd pay for online access to the Times (or would at least hope that my physical subscription would get me access). It offers the ability to customize the view too.

It doesn't seem to work on my phone yet, but I'm guessing that's a next step for the format.