neljapäev, mai 15, 2008

inno ja irja

For those of you interested in the very permeable boundary between journalism and blogging, you are in for a treat. The famous and infamous -- which as Steve Martin once said, means "more than famous" -- bloggers Inno and Irja are now writing in English.

The Inno ja Irjasphere is wide ranging. Sometimes they are discussing what they had for dinner, other times it's their interpretation of history, and still other times they are providing insight to the media system in Estonia. A recent piece dealt with some of the Reform Party's dirty laundry.

I was actually subjected to some discussion on their blog, where visitors were asked to rank my wife's former associates and colleagues according to "sexiness." The septuagenarian naturalist Fred Jüssi beat me hands down. And I understand why. What's not sexy about recording birds in the woods?

Anyway, go there, read, write, frolic.

27 kommentaari:

ombudsman ütles ...

I typed "site:innojairja.blogspot.com petrone" into Google and it returned 138 hits. Is this normal?

I would argue that their blog is more like taking a public shit on the very distinct line between journalism and, well, taking a public shit...I would be afraid of getting splattered.

Anonüümne ütles ...

- I would argue that their blog is more like taking a public shit on the very distinct line between journalism and, well, taking a public shit...I would be afraid of getting splattered.

Hahahahahaha!

- And you have criticized the department of journalism in the University of Tartu, lead by Marju Lauristin.

And if you have nothing noteworthy to say and no one to say it to, start a blog.

Instructor ütles ...

A public shit isn't descriptive enough. I'd go with "big, steaming pile".

This is the guy who used to be a journalist at Äripäev, married to Kroonika's editor in chief.

Then they have a horrible divorce, so Inno goes and writes about intimate details of their life, probably to the mortification of their two young boys. Then hooks up with Irja, and goes on a pro-prostitution, pro-sex campaign.

You stay classy, guys.

When a journalist loses his credibility, you've lost everything.

And I know (I just checked with people that WOULD know) that the PM mistress graf is complete bullsvit.

If there's a pony in this big steaming pile, I think it would be any collusion between the owners who support Reform, and their media, but this ain't proof. It's speculation.

I do note, however, that Eesti Express lost a lot of circulation recently, and I'm told by long-time readers that it's gone downhill, although it's been the gold standard of journalism in Estonia since the mid-'90s. Readers picking up on a lack of quality, or something else?

Hirnu-Hrnx! ütles ...

Jüssi paneb tihastele pekki. Selge see, et seksikas.

Flasher T ütles ...

Boring. Also, comment premoderation for the lose.

Giustino ütles ...

Boring. Also, comment premoderation for the lose.

You mean you didn't enjoy their hotel reviews?

Kristopher ütles ...

I frolicked. Not too bad. More like a steaming pile of funnel cakes. I'm a little green, and it's not envy.

I think they definitely need a third team member. It's the trend everywhere and might help with focus. You have your hotel/bed-testing correspondent, the scandal dude and then a person dedicated to covering the consumer price index, for example.

Imagine where Stern and Robin Quivers might have been with a third team member.

Hirnu-Hrnx! ütles ...

Stern has a sense of introspection and humour, Inno and Irja have nothing.

Hirnu-Hrnx! ütles ...

But wait, Howard Stern has more than a 3 team members. What about Jackie, Bababooey, Stutterng John, etc.? Stuttering John however seems to have gotten a comfy gig with Jeay Leno lately. Doing nothing really.

But it is funny that there is a connection between Inno and Howard. Both like to bithc about their small penises, erectional dysfunction and bitchy ex-wives.

So Inno could be a celebrity. Put Irja in blackface and you have your own Howard and Robin in Estonia. Just give them air-time. Or sattelite time.

The Mogul ütles ...

I visited your blog, Teach. You've "got Gräzin"? Maybe that's word Estonian order, because I think Gräzin and the Reform Party have you.

Inno? Harmless. The only problem as I can see is that he isn't writing for me, or he could be a lot more prolific. As it is I see a real threat of writer's block looming.

Seriously, this goes for all of you. Drop me a line at my blog.
I can't offer credibility, but I can provide a lucrative writing arrangement.

PS. Yes, the part about Ansip's affair is wrong. Let's just say that she has an alibi.

Instructor ütles ...

>>> I can't offer credibility ...

Yep, that's pretty much established.

>>> PS. Yes, the part about Ansip's affair is wrong. Let's just say that she has an alibi.

More insinuations without proof. This isn't journalism, "telling truth to power", or anything else.

It's character assassination. It's sad, really. Even with public figures, who are more open to criticism. You keep missing the target ...

If you want to keep doing it on your blog, fine. Just don't expect me to think that what you have written is credible, even though some of the posts might be.

Your lack of credibility on these issues taints EVERYTHING you write. Some of which, actually, might be true. Can't you understand that?

The Mogul ütles ...

The Mogul said: "PS. Yes, the part about Ansip's affair is wrong. Let's just say that she has an alibi."

Instructor countered: "More insinuations without proof. This isn't journalism, "telling truth to power", or anything else."

The Mogul's reply: Inno might oblige you with proof. But a gentleman never tells, and I am first and foremost a dzhentelmen.

I'll write a kiss and tell about my tryst with Daisy before I say anything about my "culture portfolio".

Instructor ütles ...

"A gentlemen never tells."

Perfect.

So you make accusations, can offer no proof, and pass it on as rumor.

That says it all. Especially about your credibility.

The Mogul ütles ...

Regarding credibility, I have this to say: shmreddability. The way you define it is corporatist and arbitrary.

Let's take an example from the field. If my team of writers, whilst providing on-the-scene reporting services to the public, see two prominent politicians going into a restroom not far apart, is it a CRIME for them write down that "I thought they were engaging in rough sex in a stall". Why should they censor themselves?

No, I say: let them pour out their feelings in a New Journalism narrative. At THAT POINT, let the readers correct me and object, no, the politicians were both standing at the urinal, two urinals apart, minding their own business. The premoderation process on allows them to have a voice, to in effect "be the reporter" themselves. That is the power of the Internet.

That is the point where I, as the publisher, step in and point out gently that the readers are probably being subjective and partisan, and vindicate the journalist's original impression, even if there was no proof, as satirical fair comment on a public figure.

I might also cite Occam's Razor which holds that if two politicians go into the restroom together, it isn't worth trying to contrive lengthy explanations to try to prove that they were just emptying their bladders. Chances are that the simplest explanation -- illicit rough sex -- is the most probable.

As a coup de grace, I might publish, buried in a margin, a digital photo a day later that is cropped to suggest that there were only two utinals (!) and thus the politicians were probably in the stall.

Anyway, why am I saying "illicit" rough sex? Rough sex in toilet stalls is not a crime, last time I checked.

Anyway, the scheme I have described is the epitome of the journalistic process.

In this way we arrive together at the truth.

You, it seems from all this, support some kind of right-wing censorship model and are probably against sexual self-determination to boot.

But let's get down to bronze tacks, Teach. I opened my fat mouth in the first place to suggest a business idea. The only thing I am interested in is having people produce copy for me at high volume. In return, I jealously safeguard your identity (just as I do my personal affairs*), and pay you handsomely.

You wouldn't believe what a weight off your shoulders it is not to worry about credibility or the perception thereof.

*except for the one I mentioned.

The Mogul ütles ...

Going back to the (perhaps not so) hypothetical example, the following is from a manual I consulted on:

"...the question is not whether the politicians actually engaged in intercourse or whether they were apprehended in flagrante delicto by the news camera, but rather, what if they had been apprehended in such a state, and furthermore whether, if an oversensitized public mind is led ineluctably to such a conclusion, the politicians should be held personally accountable before the public for their action (or non-action, as it were). A healthy free press has the potential to slice through this Gordian knot of ultimately unresolvable value judgments; instead of neurotically apportioning blame for what might or might not have been, journalists administer instant virtual justice, which is appropriate, as the transgression on the part of the politicians was also virtual. This is salient given the expected emergence in the decades ahead of interactive media networks accessed by terminals connected remotely to a mainframe computer." (Running an Ethical Media Organization in Morally Complex Times, 1970)

Instructor ütles ...

It is well not to be afraid of being different, and it can be a form of courage. But if we aim to be different only for difference's sake, the likelihood is that we end up as the ultimate cliché – rebels without a cause.

And that's what you have become. You write crap, speculation, you can't back it up. I asked my students today in a class what they thought of you. Universally, the verdict was that you are clowns. Gum on their shoe. Not worth of discussion.

This was without ANY prompting.

Congratulations on your reputation.

Estonian media can, and will, be better.

The Mogul ütles ...

OK, I thought it was a rhetorical device, and didn't say anything, but now I'm getting ocnfused -- why do you use "you" in a reply to me while talking about Inno?

My head is spinning. My eyes getting as rheumy as Irja's and I feel like taking a long nap on a water bed from the stress of the perspective shift.

I appeal to the readers of this blog: does anything at all about my writing style (granted, I'm rusty, having retired from writing 20 years ago to dabble in publishing) say "Tähismaa"? Besides the mention of rough sex in a toilet stall.

Or are you externalizing a collective enemy?

In that case, let me compliment you: "us vs you" is a lot nicer than "us vs them". But it's also a hell of a lot more confusing.

Instructor ütles ...

I have no interest in debating someone who hides behind a pseudonym.

Anyway, the Inno and Irja media empire:

Gum-shoe.

Congratulations!!!!!! Well done.

The Mogul ütles ...

Instructor, the sense I get from your recapitulatory* post is one of demagoguery, not debate.

I'm not debating you, anyway.

I'm a) offering you (and anyone else) a job, for God's sake and b) trying to impart some of my media experience, presumptuous as it may seem.

Think of me as a hoary old man who knows you youngsters -- when pressed even slightly for "proof", you will be tripping over youself to reveal your sources lest your "credibility" be called into question.

Not in my book, pal. There has to be honor, a journalistic omerta. Those values counted back in my day. Remember Watergate!

And I'll take a pass on your implied suggestion that I reveal my identity to you, or tell you the exact dates on which I slept with cabinet ministers and the seigneur could not have.

We'll all go home in a handbasket if we're going to complain that Internet handles are pseudonyms. In my case, any court of public opinion would find that my handle is far more descriptive and accurate than my common name.

**summary, or "surrender again"

jctexpat ütles ...

Mogul wrote:
-Let's take an example from the field. If my team of writers, whilst providing on-the-scene reporting services to the public, see two prominent politicians going into a restroom not far apart, is it a CRIME for them write down that "I thought they were engaging in rough sex in a stall". Why should they censor themselves?-

and

-I might also cite Occam's Razor which holds that if two politicians go into the restroom together, it isn't worth trying to contrive lengthy explanations to try to prove that they were just emptying their bladders. Chances are that the simplest explanation -- illicit rough sex -- is the most probable.-

I came into this discussion late, but according to Occam's Razor that you use, isn't the simplest explanation as to why two prominent politicians go into a restroom is that they wish to use the toilet? According to your standards, then does everyone that goes into a restroom engage in masturbation? How can your journalists claim that they were engaged in 'rough sex' (how do they even know it was rough? maybe it was gentle and loving....) just because two people walk into a restroom together? If two people walk into a restaurant together are they engaging in murder or maybe they just want to eat?

Isn't the burden of proof on the journalist when they make an accusation or can they just say whatever they want to make up to sensationalize the issue?

The Mogul ütles ...

If two people walk into a restaurant together are they engaging in murder or maybe they just want to eat?

If you even considered the fact that they might commit murder, you should think about reporting it, perhaps in the style of a fanciful vignette. Use a different tense to distinguish it from the "hard" reporting. Your best friend here is Godfather Part I (this is more for headline writers). There is nothing like a McClusky and Sollozzo reference to inject life to what would otherwise be a dull story about politicians and what they ate.

Naturally you should come up with proof that there was intent to kill, but if proof is not readily available, and someone complains, the journalist should just shake his or her head, and say something like, "Thank you for your comment. Yes, I see your side of it. Based on what I know, however, I still think what I wrote was a valid impression."

The Mogul ütles ...

Re Ockham: If two of five politicians are sheepishly caught heading toward business class, Occam's Razor holds that it is likely not some sort of favoritist-to-some-politicians scheme that has allowed them and only them to upgrade their economy tickets to a higher class and that they are embarrassed about it, BUT INSTEAD the far less elaborate explanation: that they are trying to sneak into their business class seats, which they have paid for with taxpayer money, without anyone noticing.

Instructor ütles ...

Sorry, Charlie.

I'm not a youngster. I can pretty well guarantee that I'm at least as old as you. I'm certainly a better journalist, written for organizations that you can only dream of. And I don't care who you have fucked. That's not my definition of "street credibility."

Offer a job? No thanks, I'd like to keep my reputation intact. Too bad you didn't learn the term 'omerta' a few years ago.

Instead, you decided to become a clown. What a waste. :-(

The Mogul ütles ...

I appear to be in my early 40s, but I usually say I am 45; both those digits are contained in my actual age. You?

Are you saying that I am being a clown or that Inno is being a clown? I am confused by your pronouns. I am not being a clown.

You may be a good journalist, but reading comprehension is not your forte. If you look back a few comments, the job I offered would leave your reputation intact. You can accept privately and the material you produce will not be bylined. It is all published in my name.

The Mogul ütles ...
Autor on selle kommentaari eemaldanud.
The Mogul ütles ...

Uhuh. Good luck with all that.


Unlike you, I actually have students to think of rather than trying to talk out of my clown-ass.

The Mogul ütles ...

Crap. :P