Deja vued again: New York magazine’s Michael Wolff has written an extremely blogged column called, “The New Old Thing,” about the strangely familiar feeling of Internet boomtimes that’s taking place these days.

Quote:

Is
it 1994, which means it’s just getting started again? Or is it 1995 and
the Google IPO is Netscape, which means a year of pure mania before the
first dip? Indeed, if this online Christmas season is as good as many
people think it’s going to be, if the Google IPO goes out at maximum or
even undreamed-of levels—sheesh, we could see dot-com ads back by the
Super Bowl. Or is it all speeded-up—some new version of Internet time,
with boom and bust compressed? Real boom or cruel boomlet?

Today, my friend Tony Silber of m10 Report has an interview with Wolff
regarding the “new boom’s” impact on magazines. In addition to Wolff’s
insight, I like the approach Tony takes with this piece. Rather that
structure it as a Q&A format, he uses the “as told to” model.

Nearly two years ago, I posted a long blog piece
regarding a concept I heard futurist Paul Saffo describe in 1995 that
he dubbed, “micro-myopia.” The concept, described on that previoius
blog post, helps to explain what Wolff is now sensing.

Even more prescient, however, is Saffo’s 1998 interview with PBS
in which he predicted that most of the then-booming start-ups would
fail, but that the longterm effect of “information technology” would be
what Wolff is now having his eureka moment about.

I guess that’s why they call them futurists.

Unfortunate: Adage is reporting that Vanguarde Media, publisher of Savoy, Heart & Soul and Honey magazines, is ceasing publication immediately and will file for bankruptcy.

In lovemark: Marketing buzzword early-warning signal. When you identify with a brand soooo much that you wrap your indentity up in it (not that I would or anything), you’ve elevated it to lovemark status. “>Even magazines can be (or attempt to be) lovemarks. (via Gawker.)

Math-challenged reporter: The world does not need another politically-oriented weblog so for the past two years I have successfully resisted all urges (with a couple exceptions) to comment on my views about domestic or geopolitical issues.

However, I’m going off-topic to post a quote from an AP story about the Senate passage of the Medicare legislation this morning to illustrate how the political leanings of a writer can cause them to completely mis-represent the point.

Here is the quote from the AP story:

While Frist and others called it a bipartisan vote, the tally fell largely along party lines. Forty-two Republicans, 11 Democrats and an independent backed the legislation. Nine conservative Republicans joined 35 Democrats in opposition.

I assume the unidentified reporter has covered the Senate before so they would know that when 11 Democrats vote with the opposing party and 9 Republicans bolt from their President and Senate Leader to vote with Democrats, the phrase “largely along party lines” is not an accurate analysis of the vote.

In other words, 20% of Democrats voted with the majority of Republicans and almost 20% of Republicans voted with the majority of Democrats.

While “largely along party lines” may be factually correct, it is still bad math and, yes, helps perpetuate the belief that reporters write with thinly veiled bias.

I link, you decide: During my travels last week, I skipped some magazine-related news that was, well, marginal. However, one of these items, a story about a 77-year-old library patron who was so angered by the cover of a gay magazine that he ripped the cover off, now has a follow-up story on the AP wire. (Side question regarding nuanced reporting: Does the reporter seem to be suggesting something with his specific reference to the patron taking the cover home with him? With a couple of more sentences, this article could make it onto theonion.com)