Benjamin said that art’s “aura” (that sense of art’s greatness and awe which according to him was the result of aristocratic values and class power and control) would be destroyed by the mass reproduction and distribution of art.

Well, that sort of came true. The reproduction/distribution part was prescient to say the least, but auras seem to be stronger than ever. (Witness our unquenchable and fickle lust for idolization of anything resembling “famous” including–because we now have easy access to them–ordinary people.)

I think this is because while technological evolution is historical and contingent, aura-loving is an enduring human trait.

This same dynamic applies to what is happening with news: vis a vis both the fracturing of control because of technology, and our ever-undiminished desire. Big bureaus may shrink and become diffuse, but news (our need, our love for news) will remain strong and, with technology, only feed opportunities to uncover and broadcast it.

seems like the opportunities are out there, if there is good timing
http://essaysfornobody.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/on-timing/

Of course, all that’s in fact, their responsibilities to their organizations. But that’s why not so many have the guts, and are instead tinkering around the margins with firing a few peasants they don’t know.

So what? Does crapping on Jarvis save anyone’s job?

I’ve asked Levine questions that he’s ducked. I didn’t presume to insist that he answer or cease posting.

This is Jarvis’ venue, so it’s clear that he can place requirements on participants and can delegate that authority.

What is the basis for Levine’s claim to that authority?

@Jeff,
As I said, I really have nothing against you personally. But I also think it’s naive not to expect a certain amount of criticism when you tell a group of people that they should get paid less. And I think you’ll agree that anything I’ve said to you is nothing compared to the pain of losing a job in an economy like this one.

Does Levine really believe that that is the only thing that Jarvis believes?

Does he believe that “cut salaries” was only recommendation that Jarvis made to Ann Arbor?

We get that Levine thinks that Ann Arbor should have done something different. Levine claims that they could have increased revenues by spending more money on journalism. (I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has more detail, even though he didn’t with Jarvis.)

Maybe so.

But we don’t see Levine putting his money behind that recommendation. Curious.

Into what? Be specific. What law or contract does Levine think that I’ve violated?

I’ll help. Within contractual and statutory limits, I believe that an employer is free to set and change salaries. Employees are free to go elsewhere.

FWIW, Levine has said that his employer operates the same way. Since he has that business name, I’m sure that he’s already forwarded the relevant information to the US Labor Department. Right?

Are you really that shocked to hear that journalists disagree vehemently with your feeling that they should work for less money?

(then tries to act tough with condescending “get a life, please” meaningless response…)

Your suggestion that “the industry should be watching and learning from” your little experiment in Ann Arbor is as irresponsible as it is self-aggrandizing.

@ Freeman, I’m ignoring you until you answer my question: What do you do? Please provide a business name so the U.S. Labor Dept can conduct an appropriate investigation. Looks like they finally got Jeff’s buddy Nick Denton to make some of his journalists full-time: http://www.mediabistro.com/mediajobsdaily/online/sheila_mcclear_takes_credit_for_gawkers_w2_offer_144664.asp

As to “that money would have been better spent on reporting”, I’ll note that they were spending that money on reporting, and going down the drain. I don’t know that it will survive with those changes, but without some change, it was dead.

I think that one should pay what it takes to get folks to show up to do the work that you want done. And, if you can’t pay that, you go out of biz.

If Levine disagrees, I’ll ask him how often he pays more for housing, transportation, food, etc. Are salaries different or just journalist salaries?

As to “retain top talent”, the Ann Arbor folks are free to take jobs that pay more. Why isn’t Levine offering them such jobs?

As for Billboard, I’ve heard that the new owners plan on investing in the business, and I hope that’s the case. (I don’t have any inside information.) If so, they will improve their competitive position in a way that will allow them to continue to collect subscription revenue at a time when advertising is in decline. If they make substantial cuts, I think they’ll weaken the product and have a harder time charging for subscriptions. That’s just my opinion, of course, and I wish everyone there the best whatever they do.

The evidence is Jeff’s consulting money – he doesn’t work cheap, so they obviously had some cash. I think that money would have been better spent on reporting.

Once again, that’s Rob or Mr. Levine to you, Freetard. And _please_ tell us how YOU retain top talent when you advertise yourself as so eager to make salary reductions.

Bankruptcy is also unusual.

> This is bad for morale, which is bad for any product. It also drives away the best people, who have the kind of initiative and ambition to come up with the kind of ideas that can help a troubled business.

All that’s true, but it’s a long way from “unjust”. And, we’ve yet to see that Ann Arbor had an alternative.

Levine first said that salary reductions were “unjust”. Now we find that they’re acceptable in some circumstances, so the unjustness, if any, is circumstance-specific.

What would Levine have had Ann Arbor do instead of reducing salaries across the board? If he’s going claim that there was some money left for salaries, let’s see some evidence. If not, then pay folks more involves paying fewer people. So, who else gets cut, and why isn’t that at least as bad?