M&D and Journalism

[Doug Millison]

At the risk of slamming the profession in which I've worked many years,
it's true that some journalists are lazy, including book reviewers, and
sometimes they just don't have time to do more research and reporting.
Deadline realities sometimes lead to articles written on the basis of
information provided by PR flacks, augmented, more or less, by the
journalist's background and understanding -- 500 words based on a single
fact and a quote from somebody with a connection to the story. You'd be
surprised at how much of a story can originate in comments the cab driver
made on the ride in from the airport, or the chatter of foreign
correspondents gathered at an expat bar. Unfortunately, not every
journalist on every story enjoys the luxury of time enough to dig in and
root out the real story, and a few don't always make the effort, but good
journalists generally manage to put together stories that don't mislead.
The London review in question seems to be of the lazy, under-reported,
misleading variety.

Regarding the M&D official Web site, compared to the Pynchon sites
maintained by others, the Holt site pales. The Holt site is a classic
example of a project that resulted in an attractive enough shell that never
gets fleshed out, probably because the lion's share of the budget was spent
up front on the initial design and development work, leaving not enough for
follow-through. Maintaining an M&D Web site and keeping up with all the
relevant developments would require at least a half-time, if not full-time,
editor. I doubt the official Web site cost as much as $100,000, but I'd be
surprised if it cost much less  than $50,000, a significant dent in the
book's marketing budget. I know a bit about this because online editorial
design, development, and management is what I do for a living.

Just my two cents,
Doug






At 7:45 AM 6/4/97, Bruce Appelbaum wrote:
>     Yeah, accurate, but mean-spirited.
>
>     Re the M&D website -- not only is it nothing spectacular, but the
>     owners don't seem to keep it up.  After all the hoopla, it still lists
>     the same three or four "events" and nothing much else seems to be
>     planned.  I guess a $200K promotion budget doesn't go as far as it
>     used to.
>
>     As to who's reading it, lots of libraries will purchase it and lot of
>     people will have access to it that way.  There is of course a
>     difference between sales and readership (circulation).
>
>     On an aside, davemarc mentioned that there were some radio
>     commercials.  I haven't heard them -- any details?
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
>_________________________________
>Subject: M&D and Journalism
>Author:  "davemarc" <davemarc at panix.com> at Internet
>Date:    6/4/97 12:20 AM
>
>
>Ever since posting to the effect that the NY Observer article was sorta
>accurate, I've been a-thinking and a-thinking about it.  And I thought some
>more about that London article, and about those reviews we've been reading.
>
>Now, I still like a lot of the NY Observer article.  Somewhere in there are
>some facts and research--I'm sure of it.  But yes, it's full of weird
>assertions and strange claims.  We've all seen the Holt website, right?  I
>think the article makes it seem as if it was some kind of brilliant pr coup.
> But really, folks--we know that it was nothing more than serviceable,
>right?  And that brilliant pr campaign to stir up public interest?  The
>reporter mentioned every little bookstore functionon the website (what, were
>there four of them?), a radio ad, some unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo about
>getting the public to think the book would be scarce....That's it?  I
>suggest that it doesn't take a pr genius to figure out that Pynchon fans
>would by the book, and the point would be to get the fence-sitters to buy
>it....
>
>The article looks to me like it's actually a pr coup for the pr department
>of Holt, making it look a lot cleverer than it really was in this case.
>Now, I think there's a story in how the department contended with P's
>peculiarities without screwing up royally--I think the department did a
>fine job--but I think that the Observer story hyped the department quite a
>bit.
>
>And as for how fashionable M&D is...there's probably some truth to that,
>but I wonder where *the evidence* is.  Maybe I don't get out enough, but I
>still haven't seen anyone but p-listers carrying the tome around.  So
>again, I think there's hype here.
>
>As for the reviews, I sympathize with journalists who seem to have been
>driven to distraction by having to read the book on a tight deadline.  But
>I'm disappointed at how many of these "literati" feel it necessary to call
>Pynchon appreciators "nuts" and whine away about the complexity and bulk of
>his writing--as if typical readers don't have the freedom to take their
>time reading the book, treating it as an aesthetic object rather than 773
>pages that have to be read and reviewed by Date X.  The critics are
>entitled to their opinions, of course; I'm just a little surprised at how
>philistine, narrow, and unimaginative (not to mention redundant) they end
>up sounding.
>
>At the bottom of my own whine-glass,
>
>davemarc

<<<D O U G  M I L L I S O N------->millison at online-journalist.com>>>
Today in history: 1989.  Chinese troops began their sweep of Tiananmen
Square to crush student pro-democracy demonstrators, killing hundreds of
students.