Media Criticism

As a blogger, I am realistic about the number of people who read Media Critiques. I know that my readership is relatively low though I have a number of loyal readers. I have received emails from only a handful of the individuals (or representatives of those individuals) whom I have spoke of since I started writing this summer. My writing on Media Critiques is a labor of love and a soapbox to help me get out my opinions in a crowded blogosphere.

Peter Struck from the Lapham’s Quarterly editorial board recently left a message on Media Critiques. This message along with an email with the same material criticized my initial critique of Lewis Lapham’s new publication for being misinformed. I have to stay that I am impressed that Mr. Struck has the time to scour the blogosphere for criticisms of the new publication. Thanks for reading Media Critiques, Mr. Struck!

There are a few reasons why I feel that Mr. Struck’s criticisms are not entirely correct:
1. Media Critiques is not dogmatic in its approach to criticizing the media. If Mr. Struck had read past blog entries on Carson Daly, the U.S. Postal Service and John Edwards, he would know that this blog is general in its scope. I do not stick to critiquing media outlets and publications in my daily entries.

2. While I may not have read the print edition of Lapham’s Quarterly that I briefly mentioned, I certainly read the website material. There are elements of the websites that are exclusive to the Internet but between Mr. Lapham’s preamble and the select documents available on the website, I gave a first blush about the publication. I take umbrage to the accusation that I was unprepared for this article. The scope of my entry is not what you thought it was, Mr. Struck.

3. The loyal readers of Media Critiques have an appetite for new reading material. Lapham’s Quarterly will be read by some of the blog’s viewers out of curiosity and some will enjoy the material. I was using my experience with Harper’s and my reading of the web material to formulate a preliminary opinion.

I hope that these points answer Mr. Struck’s criticisms of my blog entry. If they do not, I have to say that I am not in the business of pleasing everyone all of the time.

I have read Harper’s Magazine off and on for about five years now and the reason I have been ambivalent in my support comes from the tone of the publication. I am a fairly well-educated person who does not like the pretension of advanced degrees and lofty words (especially since I started teaching in college). The appeal of Harper’s has come from the publication of fiction, poetry and a few poignant essays on political issues that have caught my eye. The remainder of the magazine seems to be a tool to pump up the egos of snobs and elitists who share a disdain for simple sentences.

Editor-in-chief Lewis Lapham has converted this snobbish ethic into a new publication called Lapham’s Quarterly. I have not yet read this magazine but the name is annoying enough to prevent me from spending a single dollar. Lewis Lapham does not have the cache of Oprah Winfrey but seems to share her penchant for self indulgence. In the Columbia Journalism Review, there is a nice piece on the inaugural edition of Lapham’s new publication. The review is mixed though it seems to error on the side of annoyance with Lapham’s love of irony.

The first edition featured a series of essays on war that are meant to make us think about the current state of war in the world. The clips I have read about this first edition show a mixture of poignancy (a letter by a British commander in Mesopotamia before World War I) and pretentiousness (quoting Goethe and citing George Orwell as a contributer). I know that I will break down and purchase a copy of this magazine at some point simply to see how much arrogance is oozing from its pages.