Lachky is Leaving the Building

From Jeremiah McWilliams of the always-informative [example of why journalism must survive] Lager Heads, news that Bob Lachky is leaving Anheuser-Busch.

I'm not even remotely surprised. Heck, I'm 55. I can understand the desire to do something different. Especially when what you've been doing is slammed by a tsunami named Carlos. Although I absolutely believe the take on it: that Lachky had been thinking of this for some time. (Because he'd no doubt seen that the times they were 'a changing.) (For which we ought to applaud his ability to take the long view of the big picture.) Lachky, by the way (whom I've only met once) is the guy who responded (by paper letter) last summer to my plea that A-B try to save the archives and library, for which I was grateful.

Bob: good luck and godspeed.

As I Say: Tipping Point, Newspapers, Etc. [UPDATED]

I'd no sooner posted my previous entry when this came zooming through from Nicholas Carr, who's tackling everything and the kitchen sink.

Added minutes later: I posted this link simply because it landed in the in-box just as I was finishing the previous post. I'd not yet read Carr's essay when I posted the post (if you know what I mean.) Now I have.

You should read it. It may be the single smartest, most common-sense commentary yet on how and why newspapers (and other media) will survive. And it's worth reading an unintended companion piece that I'd linked to in the previous post, the report about TV in the Wall Street Journal. The reporters who wrote it also framed their piece in the context of supply/demand/shakeout. Fascinating. The context of the debate is shifting from "people don't read anymore" to "there's a demand but too many suppliers."

That's a major shift in perspective that reframes the discussion and moves it from abstract to concrete. Also reminds me of, well, the history of the brewing industry .......)

More On Newspapers

I think it's safe to say that we've hit the tipping point when it comes to thinking about the future of the printed word, whether books, newspapers, whatever. (And in the past week, the chatter has also, and rather suddenly, shifted to visual media as well.)

Anyway, links to a collection of recent pieces. Some are now about a week old (positively dinosaurish in blog-time), but . . . . Major piece in last week's Time magazine. Much better (more thoughtful) than I expected.

In response to that piece, an excellent essay at Newspaper Death Watch.

And this in response to the idea of "micropayments."

Thoughtful (albeit somber) observations for Robert Stein at Connecting.The.Dots.

In today's New York Times, this collection of short essays from the most mainstream of the mainstream.

As for visual media, it's worth reading this from last Sunday's Times, and this in today's Wall Street Journal

. What I find odd about those last two reports are their inherent contradications: The Times piece argues that television is in great shape; the Journal piece says, yikes!, the TV network sky/system are falling. What I think the Times writer misses completely is this: he argues that modern humans simply prefer visuals and "non-visuals," by which I gather he means words, are doomed.

But I don't know about that. I don't think he's taking into account WHY so many of us turn to "watching" images (television, movies, etc.) I can't speak for anyone else, but at the end of the day, I turn to visuals because I've spent the entire.damn.day. reading words (and writing them) and I can't bear the idea of doing it anymore.

So I "watch" something. (And I don't "watch television," meaning clicking around randomly, so much as I use the object in our house as a device for watching stuff that I choose.)

Beer Sales: Down, Down, Down (As I Expected) -- And Those "Efficiencies" Are Paying Off

News today from MolsonCoors: Beer sales are down.

Of course they are. And you're scoffing at the idea that somehow this is all due to the dollar's strength against other currencies. That's because you read this and this. S

ee how all your new-found historical perspective is paying off when you read the news? History's not so bad. Really, it's not! (Note, too, that MillerCoors joint venture is indeed paying off, thanks to all those "efficiencies" the venture's leaders began working on a year ago. Which may be what saves them from the fate I predicted.) (Although to be fair to myself, when I made that prediction, I had no idea that InBev was about to ram the gates.)

And Then Moving Back To Beer and the Eternal "What's Good" Debate . . .

More thought-provoking ruminations from Jeff at Beervana.

The Guiness post he refers to, which contains the Velveeta comment from Patrick Emerson, is here. I took my own stupid stab at this here. But here's an entry that links back to the origins of the "good in relation to price" commentary from Jeff and Patrick. (By the way, apparently Patrick also has a separate beer economics blog.) (WHERE do people get their energy? And may I have some of it?)

Every "group," by the way, has its running debate about what's "good" and what's not.

Eg, writers will debate the meaning of "good writing" all the way to the pearly gates: Is a "good" writer one who creates lush, evocative strings of words, even if those strings of words don't produce a particularly compelling narrative? Or is a "good writer" one who produces rolloping great stories? (Yes, I made up the word "rolloping." It sounds good.)

Eg, frankly, J.K. Rowling wouldn't know evocative prose if it smacked her in the face, but, yowza! she can keep the reader's eye glued to the page with her plots and pacing. (If you're curious, by the way: I fall into the "good story" camp. Nuthin' I hate more than some "writer" who is in love with his/her own "voice" and whose characters are boring and plots non-existent.) (It's why I like Anthony Trollope: by god, he could craft lush, evocative strings of words, AND his characters and plots are addictive.)

(And I have to wonder: is it possible for me to post a blog entry without yammering on and on and on???????????)

What's Obama Doing?

Leading. It's what leaders do. No surprise, most people don't recognize it because most adult Americans have never experienced serious presidential leadership. Last time it happened, sadly, was during the Reagan years. (Also sadly . . . .) (No. I was not a fan.)

President Obama is moving quickly (or trying to do so) and tackling short-term problems: He's facing the enemy at the gates. But he's also engaging in the second, and perhaps more important task, of a good leader: Trying to figure out how and why the enemy got there in the first place, and thus trying to prevent it from happening again.

Put another way, he's tackling the immediate issues, while taking the long view of the big picture. He's leading.

Go, Barack.