I'm not competent to speak of 'zines. I refer interested parties to the Emigre 46, which discusses the design and philosophy of the 'zine. But I can explain what I know of mass media, particularly in the area of the glossy trades and newspapers.
"A very simple formula"
The medium moves advertising; articles are convenient filler.
The editorial staff of any newspaper, from the Bloom Picayune to the New York Times, properly motivated, should be able to spit off their ad:article area ratio. Most papers would be glad to hit 40% or so. NYT would go crazy for that kind of revenue. Articles are there to appeal to market share, say, a particular political orientation.
The image of journalism, for example, the image of a Woodward-and-Bernstein team of overworked, underslept young men after the big scoop, is a myth designed to move product.
The value of "integrity" to a publication which prints ads with its other material, a publication usually owned by a multinational corporation, is not very dissimilar to the value of "legitimacy" of government functions, such as a legal system, unto a government. In fact, as power continually transfers out of the hands of governments to the corporations, words such as "integrity" and "legitimacy" become, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable. This is meat for another discussion, however.
The music rag "Rolling Stone", for example, is a good example of "integrity" sold as product. Never mind that the music news contained within could be considered mostly hipster, "Let's go join Greenpeace; it'll be fun!" bullshit, and never mind that, in any given month you will find a good half of the magazine to be glossy, slick advertisements for brand-name products with a high profit margin: perfumes, colognes, shoes, alcohol, music(!), etc.
The mag's claim, and a large reason that it is purchased by 20- and 30-somethings with fat wallets, is that its roots as a rebellious '60s' publication give it the respect that, say, mags like "Spin" or "NME" haven't quite earned. "RS paid its dues." This image is considered (reflected) in the design structure and marketing of the mag. I am certain that when their design crew makes even the slightest change, the editorial staff make sure that change is in line with the "heritage and respectability of the product line". I am even more certain that the advertising firms are aware of the market which RS reaches, and design *their* ads with this in mind.
I'd bet that, ten years down the line, you'll see the successful 'zines of today reminding you, either in the content of its writing or design, that they "kept it real", as a means to get you to buy the thing.
"Is true music journalism disappearing?"
If you are a 'zine, and you accept any advertising revenue, you have then decided to redirect your work towards a particular market group and you have made a significant transition. As an editor, your goals are now channeled towards the two Golden Rules of Publishing:
-- hitting and developing your market share
-- avoiding loss of revenue (not offending your advertisers)
In that sense, if "true music journalism" involves getting the story without interference from other agendas, other than *getting the info to the fans, and now*, then it is in the process of disappearing (if it is not already gone), as small-market mags get sucked up by larger publication houses. The role of the music mag is then to move the advertiser's product: Budweiser, Gilette, Astralwerks, whatever.
Criticism dies, if only because -- in the end -- critical thought *never mattered*. It loses its effect in the effort to sell something other than pure info and pure opinion, within the context of an objective evaluation.
"No one benefits when the music press loses its journalistic values, its zest to be creative, to be daring, to be unique, individual, and, above all, original."
I would argue that 99% of the music press, an invention of the media conglomerates, never had these values to begin with! They are "publicists", selling an image -- and you won't get far with them, discussing such mind-blowing concepts as "honesty", "critical thought" and "integrity".
When you plunk down six bucks for the rag, you know what you're getting. Or at least you should.
What exactly did you expect of "music journalists", anyway? What can they report that you wouldn't get from listening to the music in the first place?
I look at it this way: Beethoven doesn't need an agent. Shakespeare and Schiller need no agents. Vonnegut and Dick need no publicists. They all have no need for a media house doing MTV-style reports ("Kurt fathers Madonna's next baby, more after this, brought to you by the good people at Sony, etc.").
The real stuff, the important, creative stuff, lives on -- indifferent to good or shitty press.
And in the end, that's all that matters. At least to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Reynolds Distributed Support Specialist
Department of Biology School of Arts & Sciences Computing
University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA
email:reynolda@sas.upenn.edu phone:215.573.2818
PGP Fingerprint: E0E3 BB20 C1BC 3C0D 56A1 1FD5 5B9C 9E91 A7F0 F9B5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The future is in crowds." -- Don DeLillo