Last night, as I was debating whether to get fast food for dinner, I had a minor revelation. It wasn't about fast food, but about health in general. I did the math and realized that if I had a child tomorrow, he or she would turn 18 when I was 49 years old.
To me, at 31, an 18-year-old isn't very old. I remember being 18 and not knowing squat about zilch. And if I have kids, I'd really like to be around to help them out with that kind of thing.
I haven't given much thought about having kids, except to assume that at some point I will. But I have never considered whether I will be around to see them become adults. Given my family history of leaky heart valves and other such things, I am already at a slight disadvantage. The fact that I outweigh my father by 10 pounds is another bad sign.
So this "revelation" became a personal charge to myself. Healthy is better. I am still plenty young enough to change my habits, and in fact have already been doing that. No more fast food (not even "only once in awhile"). More running--daily when possible. Less couch potato-ish activity.
Part of this is because I finally realized how I can accomplish this. It's less about saying "never eat unhealthy again, ever" and more about saying: tonight, do I need a hamburger from Wendy's? And the answer is always no. Baby steps to the elevator, yo.
I don't have kids yet. Hell, I don't even have somebody who wants to birth any of my children.* But I'll be damned if I'm going to let my laziness in 2008/2009 screw me over in 2027.
*This is just shorthand. I am entirely in favor of adoption. Please don't yell at me about skyrocketing population or something.
May 20, 2009
May 13, 2009
Brief Update Regarding Two Items
First -- and I hope that this is the last I will say on this -- I'm going to talk about newspapers failing again. Mostly because Weingarten discussed it in his chat today.
I think it is fascinating to watch reporters, even humorists, try and argue that the news should cost money. They know it's their livelihood at stake, so I don't begrudge them one bit, but think about how often we associate reporters with "the truth" and "getting to the story". They don't regard capitalism as a reason to keep information hidden, unless it's THEIR capitalism, in which case suddenly the question becomes, "How can we charge people per story?"
But let's all just breathe a moment. Weingarten posed the question (paraphrased): why do people think the news should be free? I'd have thought the answer was obvious. We have never paid for the content; we pay for the medium.
We pay for a television set; a radio; a computer; and a stack of dead trees. These items allow us access to the news, but we don't pay for the content. We pay for the access. The newspaper is just a very old version of a cable-modem, or a television set. The sooner newspapers realize this, the quicker the solution will make itself known.
What's the one news source you can think of that has no advertising, but survives? National Public Radio (and local equivalents) and the Public Broadcasting Service. PBS mixes entertainment in, but is still akin to NPR. Newspapers are going to have to go non-profit if they want to survive. And the old guard is just going to have to accept it, if they want to live.
Item Two! I'm headed back east for a few days to watch one of my sisters do something academic. I'm pretty sure the middle one. Don't miss me too much while I'm gone!
I think it is fascinating to watch reporters, even humorists, try and argue that the news should cost money. They know it's their livelihood at stake, so I don't begrudge them one bit, but think about how often we associate reporters with "the truth" and "getting to the story". They don't regard capitalism as a reason to keep information hidden, unless it's THEIR capitalism, in which case suddenly the question becomes, "How can we charge people per story?"
But let's all just breathe a moment. Weingarten posed the question (paraphrased): why do people think the news should be free? I'd have thought the answer was obvious. We have never paid for the content; we pay for the medium.
We pay for a television set; a radio; a computer; and a stack of dead trees. These items allow us access to the news, but we don't pay for the content. We pay for the access. The newspaper is just a very old version of a cable-modem, or a television set. The sooner newspapers realize this, the quicker the solution will make itself known.
What's the one news source you can think of that has no advertising, but survives? National Public Radio (and local equivalents) and the Public Broadcasting Service. PBS mixes entertainment in, but is still akin to NPR. Newspapers are going to have to go non-profit if they want to survive. And the old guard is just going to have to accept it, if they want to live.
Item Two! I'm headed back east for a few days to watch one of my sisters do something academic. I'm pretty sure the middle one. Don't miss me too much while I'm gone!
May 11, 2009
The Slow Death of the Newspaper
From the Washington Post's weekly chat with media man Howard Kurtz:
The television is analogous to a computer, not to the content ON the computer. The most accurate analogy is: "That's like saying you already paid to buy a television, so why should you have to pay for cable?" We all pay for cable (illegal connections are a side note and not relevant to the analogy). We all pay for internet access.
What we don't pay for are television shows that come as part of cable. That's the analogy; paying for newspaper content would be akin to me paying for The Daily Show on Comedy Central. I already buy my cable, and there's no way I'm paying twice for both delivery and substantive content. I already hate that Pizza Hut does the same thing.
I don't know what the newspapers will do. I don't have a solution. But they've tried a pay-for-content model and it doesn't work. The reason? News is free. News is news, which means it almost immediately becomes worthless. It becomes "old news", and then it's just information, and not something you should have to pay to get. The 25/50 cent charge for a paper is tiny and has long represented a minor convenience charge for being able to take the news with you. You can still go to the library and read the paper, after all.
iTunes is not an accurate model. You can't just pick one of the few successful pay-for-content endeavors and copy it. iTunes is perfect for what it serves: music. Music is not ephemeral; unlike the news, it doesn't become instantly irrelevant the next day. Okay, well, this may not be true for some bands, but you see the point. You buy a song, it's yours. I don't want to buy an article about the White House's position on climate change as of Monday, May 11, 2009, at 12:30 pm. It has no permanence.
I still believe that advertising can, and should, work to support the newspaper industry. I firmly believe in reporting and journalism, and agree that blogging and twitter do not provide a significant alternative. But this talk of charging people for content is just plain crazy. People will not pay for something that has historically--even if "historically" means 15 years--been free.
Howard, could part of the problem be that because consumers already pay for online access that we don't also want to pay for online content. I spend $50/month for online access. I can't see myself paying any additional $ for online content. To say that everything online is free is not quite accurate. It's just that the service providers are the ones making the money, not the content providers.Kurtz, I love ya, but this is way off.
Howard Kurtz: Fair point. Everyone pays for Internet access. But that's like saying you already paid to buy a TV set, so why should you now have to pay for cable? (And look, some people don't.) I grew up thinking television would always be free, and now people pay cable providers--and pay extra for premium channels--because they think the content is worth it. Computers and online access aren't cheap, but content also costs money, and iTunes is but one example of how people are willing to pay for what's important to them.
The television is analogous to a computer, not to the content ON the computer. The most accurate analogy is: "That's like saying you already paid to buy a television, so why should you have to pay for cable?" We all pay for cable (illegal connections are a side note and not relevant to the analogy). We all pay for internet access.
What we don't pay for are television shows that come as part of cable. That's the analogy; paying for newspaper content would be akin to me paying for The Daily Show on Comedy Central. I already buy my cable, and there's no way I'm paying twice for both delivery and substantive content. I already hate that Pizza Hut does the same thing.
I don't know what the newspapers will do. I don't have a solution. But they've tried a pay-for-content model and it doesn't work. The reason? News is free. News is news, which means it almost immediately becomes worthless. It becomes "old news", and then it's just information, and not something you should have to pay to get. The 25/50 cent charge for a paper is tiny and has long represented a minor convenience charge for being able to take the news with you. You can still go to the library and read the paper, after all.
iTunes is not an accurate model. You can't just pick one of the few successful pay-for-content endeavors and copy it. iTunes is perfect for what it serves: music. Music is not ephemeral; unlike the news, it doesn't become instantly irrelevant the next day. Okay, well, this may not be true for some bands, but you see the point. You buy a song, it's yours. I don't want to buy an article about the White House's position on climate change as of Monday, May 11, 2009, at 12:30 pm. It has no permanence.
I still believe that advertising can, and should, work to support the newspaper industry. I firmly believe in reporting and journalism, and agree that blogging and twitter do not provide a significant alternative. But this talk of charging people for content is just plain crazy. People will not pay for something that has historically--even if "historically" means 15 years--been free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)