Now Is the Summer of Too Much Content
Now Is
the Summer of Too Much Content
Steven Brill complains
implausibly that the press doesn't pay enough attention to itself. The enormous
attention devoted to the premiere of his magazine of press criticism,
Brill's Content , somewhat undermines the magazine's founding premise.
That subtlety shouldn't cause him too much distress, because the press's
fascination with itself is a bonanza for its self-proclaimed scourge. Do not
look for articles in Brill's Content exposing how the media were
enslaved by Steve Brill (like the article in the premier issue exposing the
media's alleged enslavement by Kenneth Starr). No, if Brill's Content, he has
every reason to be.
Far be it
from
Slate
, of course, to complain about a ludicrous excess of
publicity attending the arrival of a new magazine. We've been there too. And
we're embarrassed to say that the current issue of
Slate
does
nothing to alleviate the symptoms of Brill Overkill. Brill, Brill's Content, and the
contents of Brill's Content have been at least touched upon during the
last few days in the following
Slate
departments: "Today's Papers," "The Week/The Spin," "In Other Magazines" (of course), "Chatterbox ," "Pundit
Central," "Explainer," "The
Breakfast Table," and "Strange
Bedfellow." Oh--and "Readme." Every aspect of the phenomenon has been
summarized, analyzed, criticized. We feel this has been a useful trial run for
future
Slate
coverage of the outbreak of a major war.
Slate 's coverage of Brillorama is not
wildly consistent. Jacob
Weisberg accuses Brill of breaking the basic rules of journalism. William Saletan accuses
him of cleverly obeying those rules while offending journalistic ethical values
all the same. Weisberg and Seth Stevenson disagree about whether the magazine's central
failure is boredom or sanctimoniousness. Susan Estrich asserts that Brill's big scoop is no big deal, while
around her we analyze it in detail (scroll past David Brooks' posting to read
hers).
Still, the
overall "take" of all our coverage is fairly negative. That is not intentional.
Perhaps Brill's Content will devote a future article to explaining why
it so often just seems to turn out that way. We have nothing against Brill's
Content . In fact, we wish it well. And no publication should be judged
irrevocably based on its first issue. Basically--let's be blunt--we'll do or
say whatever it takes to be on good terms with journalism's growliest attack
dog. ( Good doggie! Down, boy! Stevie wanna biscuit? ) And if it means
having all the writers who criticize him this week killed--why, consider it
done. It's just a small gesture from
Slate
to help the world's
leading press critic do his job of ensuring the highest standards of honesty,
accuracy, and freedom of thought in the press.
The truth is that Brill's reputation as an
attack dog--cherished above all by Brill himself--is not completely deserved.
At his previous publication, American Lawyer , he more or less invented a
genre of article that might be called the puff piece in the form of a hatchet
job. A typical American Lawyer article might reveal that Attorney X is a
mean, nasty, unscrupulous son of a bitch who'll do anything to win a case.
Attorney X's business would soar, as would his self-esteem. American
Lawyer 's famous exposés of top lawyers' salaries, Brill's indignant
editorials about overlavish summer intern programs (accompanying complex charts
that compared the number of opera tickets and restaurant dinners offered by
various firms) ... all had the natural effect of increasing the excesses he
complained about.
Overall, by the very
attention it devotes--the breathless prose, the endlessness of the articles,
the huge photos of men in suits standing in front of shelves of
books-- American Lawyer has made the law seem more important and even
glamorized it. Now Brill's Content will do the same for the media (where
we already suspect we might be glamorous). He will flatter us by the very
standards he accuses us of failing to meet, by turning our peccadilloes into
moral crises, by the very gloss on his publication that's all about us, and
above all by giving us an excuse once a month to write about ourselves.
So good
luck, Steve, and let us know if there's anything we can do. Some software,
perhaps? Fresh salmon? Straight cash? Nothing's too good for the guy who's
gonna make us journalists take a long look in the mirror.
Behind
Enemy Lines
Starting early next week,
Michael Lewis' "Millionerds" column will join Chatterbox, The Breakfast Table,
and other
Slate
features that post constantly but irregularly,
whenever the author(s) are struck with an insight or acquire a nice tidbit of
info. Michael will be filing from Silicon Valley two to three times a week.
Check it out.
--Michael Kinsley
