But neither is City News. The difference is that the Insider knows it. Like Hot Topic, City doesn't.
Since the Insider isn't so full of itself, it acknowledges that it has readers. For example, in its Valentine's day issue, it printed a reader sex survey survey. The questions were a little tame, but it was worth the few minutes it took to read it. That whole issue was full of Valentine's Day stories.
At City, Valentine's Day just didn't happen. City Readers apparently don't (ahem) have intercourse. In fact, out of the 15 stories in City News that week, zero (zed, nil, nada, none) were about fucking, love or even lust. The cover story was about a black man acting white to make it in this world. Unless he was acting white to get laid (isn't it usually the opposite?), that story had no business being on City's front page that day.
Though we may want to pretend otherwise, Valentine's Day affects everyone. The Insider comprehends this simple fact. Since they are producing a throw-away mass media weekly, they write about what their readers care about that week. That's what successful free papers do, whether they're run by evil corporations or benevolent hippies. There's no shame in it. Newspapers serve readers, not the other way around.
Also, and this is important, the Insider can laugh at itself. A recent Onion-like person-on-the-street survey asked what Insider readers do with the paper every week. One respondent noted that she found the Insider excellent as a seat cushion on wet days.
I can't imagine City printing anything like this. City's editors probably expect their readers to carefully index and file back issues of their paper for ready reference, not sit on them.
City can't laugh, much less laugh at itself. They are the double-thick condom of Rochester newspapers, capable of taking the joy out of even the most exciting situation. Imagine Hillary Clinton smelling a fart in church and you've captured the spirt that pervades this stodgy rag.
This is no apologia for the Insider, which at times enters the territory of self-parody. A recent cover delved deeply into this new text messaging phenomena, about five years too late. One of their correspondents spends her time learning to do things like sculpt balloons. And if you've seen ten pictures of drunks in bars, you've seen all you need to see.
But if I have a few minutes to kill, nothing to read, and a choice between City and Insider, I might just look at the Insider first. Especially if I want a chuckle rather than a lecture.
Comments (4)
Wait, you mean City's SHOCKING EXPOSÉ of Nathaniel Rochester wasn't self-parody?
The epsiode of City vs. Insider that I enjoyed the most took place just prior to Insider's launching... a local TV station did a little piece on the event, and for the sake of opposing view, asked Chad Whatshisface from City for his opinion. In a rather Dieteresque moment, sir (in a dimly lit room, clad in a black turtleneck) said something to the tune of: "There's nothing sadder than old, white guys trying to be hip."
Nice sense of self-loathing, dude!
Posted by Ben Frazier | March 17, 2006 9:52 AM
Posted on March 17, 2006 09:52
I'm surprised that he deigned to appear on a vulgar mass media like TV. I'm sure he was fired immediately after his appearance.
Posted by Rottenchester | March 17, 2006 10:42 AM
Posted on March 17, 2006 10:42
> Though we may want to pretend otherwise,
> Valentine's Day affects everyone.
Nope. The only way that Valentine's Day affected me was that I had to put up with the incessant discussions from my heterosexual coworker's about where they were going to get flowers and other gifts for their wives. I don't have that problem with my partner since we both hate corporate holidays with a passion-- and because we don't need the permission of Hallmark or an arbitrary date on the calendar to get all snuggly.
So I was delighted that City Newspaper didn't waste column inches "covering" Valentine's Day. Because if they did, it would effectively invalidate the purpose of City Newspaper. They are supposed to be an *alternative* newspaper. If they covered the same Valentine's Day nonsense Insider did, they wouldn't be an alternative. They would be the same.
I expect City Newspaper to be preachy, take itself too seriously, and have a left-leaning bias. That's their function. That's what I expect. I don't expect fluffy news pieces about Valentine's Day. I expect City Newspaper to pick up on topics that *don't* necessarily interest the lowest common denominator.
I'm not saying that City Newspaper is a great paper. I'm saying they have defined a role for themselves and they have consistently stayed there. Insider on the other hand will follow whatever trend a demographic analysis of 18-32 year olds think is kewl. City Newspaper has a bleeding heart, but Insider has no soul.
Posted by Anonymous | March 17, 2006 6:55 PM
Posted on March 17, 2006 18:55
I agree that the Insider started with a banal and superficial demographic analysis, but I think they're trying to transcend that. In other words, they're open to change. They may yet acquire a little soul.
City is not open to change, and since their comfort zone is so small that they have become dull and predictible. That's simply another flavor of soulessness.
Posted by Rottenchester | March 17, 2006 8:34 PM
Posted on March 17, 2006 20:34