Scriptor.org

Better than "It -is -as -it -was"

Jack Kerouac said once, On the Road: "I had nothing to offer anybody except my own confusion". I do not want to become kind of Kerouac on the topic of The Passion film. Because I like the film. And because I find too many sort of Kerouacs crawling around this film.

Better than comment the "It -is -as -it -was" press ceremony of confusion now on stage, with second- or third-hand declarations, counter-declarations and/or comments on declarations or declined declarations about "who -said -whath -when -how -to-whom -in-what-tonge -wich-tone -wich-digital-mean." And so on.

Better than write some easy ironic pieces on the "self-esteem exercises" we can find at the NYT, WSJ, WP, CNS, CNN, NCR, LAT, DMN, written by/on journalists, film producers, aide-producers, PR people, advertising execs, Jewish Rabies pro/con the ADL, high/low rank officials here and there. And so-and-so.

Better than to pay attention to this whole mess (not already just controversy) is to take some few seconds in order to read and think for a little on this very clear and clever statement released by the Holy See Press Office Director:

This statement seems to me better than "It-is-as-it-was", at least because:

1- It is official.
2- It does not deny or retract anything said by anybody.
3- It makes a clear point on the nature of the film's story.
4- It makes a clear point on the public dimension of the Holy Father judgments on artistic works.

And last but not least, I think that the statement is better than those five words ("It-is-as-it-was") because this way we are shure that nobody is making (or saying that somebody is making) use of the Pope's thoughts or words for commercial purposes. Even when we are talking about the "cinematographic recounting of the historical fact of the passion of Jesus Christ according to the Gospel accounts".

The Queen of England can support a brand of brandy, "by appointment to HRH". I love that the Church and the Pope carry out their duties and tasks in another way.

Furthermore, this Vatican statement seems to me a gift and a pleasure as a piece of press office public writting. And I rejoice as an admirer of the work done by the people involved in "The Passion". And I feel bad because the a-priori adversative campaing it suffers from the ADL blindly believers and/or fearers.

[My point on the film "The Passion"].

---

>> Read "It Is as Is Was".

Covering US presidential campaign

If you want to know what is going on in the US presidential campaing's media coverage, you must have this blog bookmark in your web browser: CJR Campaing Desk. And frequently visit that Desk from now until the Day election. The NYT hails and welcomes this initiative (maybe with a bit of envy in his glimpse at the weblog), saying that the CJR Campaing Desk "is a venture of The Columbia Journalism Review and its publisher, the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Journalists are the Web site's primary audience, but it is also for readers, viewers and listeners of the coverage." There are reasons to pay attention to Jeff Zeleny's opinion, a national political correspondent for The Chicago Tribune. He said to the NYT, in a telephone interview from Des Moines that with all the information being released by the campaigns, "it might be nice to have someone watching over that from 30,000 feet." But Mr. Zeleny cautioned that feedback, however well intended, could distract reporters. "Some reporters," he said, "may already be spending too much time on their BlackBerries or on their e-mails and not enough time talking to voters and the candidates." Anyway, those are the final paragraphs of Nicholas B. Lemann, the Dean of the Columbia Journalism School, in the Opening Shot of this weblog:

"The Desk will be politically nonpartisan. While it will call attention to journalistic sins, both of omission and commission, it will by no means be exclusively a finger-wagging operation. It will have a lively, engaged tone, not a grim, censorious one. One of the Desk's important functions will be to praise work of high quality, and one of its most useful aspects will be its ability to bring distinguished work in the local press to national attention, instantly and (through links) in full.

"The Desk aims to decrease, not enhance, the self-referential and self-enclosed tendencies of the campaign press. It is quite difficult for reporters traveling with a presidential campaign to get information independently; the Desk intends to make this easier, by making available links to briefing materials, accurate information, and other documents from the outside world that will help reporters evaluate what the candidates are saying.

"Because we are starting up on very short notice, CampaignDesk.org will become increasingly full and detailed through its early weeks. Please don't resist the temptation to become addicted to the site, as it grows and the presidential campaign gathers force. We think CampaignDesk.org has the potential to add a dimension not just to press criticism, but to campaign coverage and even to American politics. And please don't hesitate to let us know what you think of CampaignDesk.org, and how you think it might be improved."

-- 'Watchblogs' Put the Political Press Under the Microscope. By Mark Glaser, Online Journalism Review (2004-02-10):"Bloggers mount an "adopt a journalist" campaign to track election coverage. Along with CJR's nonpartisan Campaign Desk, the effort puts some of the nation's top political reporters under intense public scrutiny."

WSJ Report, a Good Example

Circula por la red una lista de diarios estadounidenses que responde a la lógica del “dime qué lees y te diré qué tienes que ver con el gobierno de tu país”: -- Wall Street Journal es leído por gente que dirige el país. -- New York Times es leído por gente que piensa que dirige el país. -- Washington Post, por gente que piensa que ellos deberían dirigir el país. -- USA Today, por quienes piensan que ellos deberían dirigir el país, pero que no entienden el Washington Post. -- Los Angeles Times es leído por gente que no tendría problemas en dirigir el país, si pudieran tomarse el tiempo. -- Boston Globe, por aquellos cuyos padres solían dirigir el país. -- New York Daily News, por gente que no está muy segura de quién dirige el país. -- New York Post es leído por gente a la que no importa quiénes dirigen el país, siempre que hagan cosas escandalosas. -- San Francisco Chronicle es leído por gente que no está segura de que haya un país o de que alguien lo esté dirigiendo. -- Miami Herald es leído por gente que está dirigiendo otro país. En esta generalización de relaciones entre diarios y poder político y económico hay tanta ironía como señales ciertas de tendencias efectivas. Sobre todo, si se considera que esas afirmaciones no pretenden decir algo absoluto, ya que más bien son una manera de marcar diferencias relativas entre unos periódicos y otros. Por esta razón, no sería probablemente difícil exportar las categorías y aplicarlas -mutatis mutandis- en otros paises. Quizá por esto tiene especial interés la reciente publicación por parte del WSJ de un Informe en el que se expone a sus lectores la línea editorial del diario, y las razones para hacerlo. Con independencia de que sus inclinaciones ideológicas sean las que son. Porque cada diario tiene la suya. Es difícil imaginar que algún lector del WSJ sea tan iluso como para pensar que por serlo ya se cuenta entre los dirigentes de los USA. Sin embargo, tiene sentido que sepa que el alguien que está al tanto de lo que leen quienes realmente dirigen el país. Y desde luego puede pensar que es lector de uno de los periódicos más racionalmente motivados para mantener la línea de acción práctica que dicen mantener. Cosa en la que los restantes medios le van efectivamente a la zaga. Empezando por el NYT y sus graves y recientes crisis de credibilidad. No comparto bastantes planteamientos del WSJ, pero pienso que son muy escasos los diarios de gran difusión e influencia –en USA, en la UE, y en el resto del mundo- que están en condiciones de hacer un Informe creíble acerca de su línea editorial, como el del WSJ, que incluya las razones de que su línea sea precisamente la que establemente mantienen, y no otra. Y que por tanto, no tome el suspechoso aspecto de “brindis al sol” o de “wishful thinking”, dejando al descubierto buena parte de las propias “hidden agendas”. ¿O es que resulta razonable pensar que a los periódicos no les queda más remedio que tener necesariamente estas “agendas ocultas”? ¿O es que quizá no se trata de algo oculto, sino de una realidad implícita, que es voluntaria e intencionadamente ignorada? En estos asuntos, en principio, todos apostamos por la transparencia. También cuando se sabe que -en concreto- no siempre se logra lo que -en abstracto- se propone. El comprometido Informe del WSJ es un buen ejemplo a tener en cuenta. Estos son algunos párrafos del Informe firmado por Karen Elliot House, Publisher del WSJ: