New York Times Finds What It's Looking For

And It's Bono; The U2 Frontman-Turned-Africa Advocate Is Now To Be A Columnist

(MarketWatch)  One of U2's best and most popular songs is entitled, "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For." But finally, the band's lead singer, Bono, has found what he craves: respectability. Now he's also going to be recognized as a pundit.

You know who else has found what it's looking for? The New York Times. The newspaper has announced that it will begin publishing Bono's op-eds at an unspecified time next year.

The Times hungers after readers for its paper and page views for its Web site -- the growth engine of any media empire these years. For better or worse, it has shown it will do practically anything to get some publicity -- don't forget when it memorably enlisted beloved satirist Art Buchwald to broadcast his own obituary on the Web site.

That was an inspired bit of whimsy to help goose traffic on the Internet. This is not. Instead, this smacks of a gimmick -- showcasing a famous person to call attention to the product.

Bono is famous for being U2's singer and an advocate for aid to Africa. He is also a global gadfly who hobnobs with world leaders and has a reputation for never meeting a photo op he didn't embrace. He has lots of credibility as a former Time magazine Person of the Year (at a time when that magazine also craved some of Bono's gold dust).

The Times and Bono are a match made in heaven. Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize, Maureen Dowd and Nicholas Kristof have Pulitzers. Now they have a Rock and Roll Hall of Famer in their ranks. Can the Washington Post say the same?

This all makes perfect sense. The Times is a media outlet desperate to create an aura of hipness at any cost. Bono offers the Times a publicity magnet.

Only the sourest curmudgeon would dismiss this inspired pairing. Only a habitual naysayer would accuse both parties of exhibiting extreme opportunism.

But come on! Yes, Bono has done commendable and valuable work in impoverished Africa. But does the paper truly need to recruit a pop star to tell its readers about the suffering there?

Silly me. I'd thought that Times columnist and multimedia superstar Kristof, boasting two Pulitzer Prizes, has already covered this beat brilliantly.

Kristof won his second Pulitzer a few years ago in the commentary category, "for his graphic, deeply reported columns that, at personal risk, focused attention on genocide in Darfur and that gave voice to the voiceless in other parts of the world."

What is a journalist?

Let's get real. Did Kristof electrify "Live Aid" in 1985 when he ran around the stage like a banshee while singing "Sunday Bloody Sunday?" (No, he did not. He was probably busy learning how to be a journalist.)

The Times' move prompts the question: What is a journalist, anyway? Or, you could ask what qualifies someone to write op-eds for the Times.

I have a few simple questions:

Can Bono actually write legitimate news prose? I don't want to imply that Bono isn't smart or resourceful enough to pull it off. Then again, will he even write his own columns? You know how it is. When a celebrity is asked to write something for publication, he or she often turns to a staff member or well-compensated consultant to dash off something for the unwashed masses.

Will his stories have an "edge"? (That's an inside joke for U2 fans.) Who cares? Like it matters what he produces, anyway. The Times is exploiting Bono's fame to get more people to read the Web site and buy papers. For Bono's part, he's smart enough to extend his brand, from rock star to philanthropist to pundit.

Did Bono score the Times gig because he is A) famous; B) accomplished; C) earnest; or D) all of the above? The correct answer, of course, is "A." Nothing else really matters.

This is the state of the American media in the 21st century.

[samthetvcat]

---"He has lots of credibility as a former Time magazine Person of the Year (at a time when that magazine also craved some of Bono''s gold dust)"---

Oh the author did mention it, but for some reason the author concluded that it wasn''t an honor that was earned . . . it would be fascinating to have heard more elaboration on the thought process behind the conclusion. Otherwise what''s to make his conclusory opinions any more of substance than the guy he''s arguing is inferior to him?

[samthetvcat]

---"The Times and Bono are a match made in heaven. Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize, Maureen Dowd and Nicholas Kristof have Pulitzers. Now they have a Rock and Roll Hall of Famer in their ranks."---

I was just reading Bono''s Wikipedia page, and Bono''s received a LOT of awards.

Nobel Peace Prize nominee in 2003, 2005, and 2006
Time Magazine 2004 Person of the Year
Time Magazine 2002, 2004 "100 Most Influential People"
Presidential Medal of Honour, Chile
Portuguese Order of Liberty
Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire

I mean like is the op-ed still relevant if the facts are deceptive? Because if Bono had been described as ''merely'' a Nobel Prize NOMINEE as opposed to a ''rock and roller'' does the piece still read the same?

Like what EXACTLY is the complaint of this op-ed . . . it sounds like the writer''s trying to say he as a journalist like the other journalists that he''s featured in this piece are superior to Bono, because they''re journalists. But Paul Krugman wasn''t a journalist until he became one, was he? I guess one could say the same about Bono . . .

[samthetvcat]

---"This is the state of the American media in the 21st century."---

I used to watch Nightline to study Ted Koppel''s thought process to learn how it is he managed to delve so deeply into issues from so many angles without falling pray to the temptation of feeling like he had already heard enough to render judgment. And then he got squeezed out by the network in favor of that British tabloid guy Martin Bashir in a shortened format with Jimmy Kimmel coming on at Midnight.

I don''t know what it says about society that that Martin Bashir/Jimmy Kimmel was seen as more preferable to Ted Koppel, but there does seem to be a massive trend towards sort of like ''newsertainment'' where people like Joy Behar are sort of seen as a voice representative of something . . .

I can understand the temptation of sort of thinking like omg why are we listening to Joy Behar, or Joe the Plumber, or Bono or whoever. But then again maybe there''s a danger to snobbery and elitism too, you know . . .

I don''t know . . .

[samthetvcat]

---"IF Joe the Plumber can be a pundit, so can Bono"---
Posted by caldwellptr

ROTFL omg I was just thinking the same thing . . . it was like well if we''re going to have ''standards'' on who ''ought'' to be granted to privilege of having a public opinion, then what exactly is that standard supposed to be?

Just personally I''ve found that the second you start relying on your reputation or credentials to make a case rather than evidence you inevitably miss something so if that''s true for most of us I guess in the big picture if the so-called experts hope to continuously be seen as such it''s a label that continuously needs to be earned (?)

The thing about celebrity is that their power to move people seems to be grounded in their ability to make people feel a connection (?) Like Bono''s music may speak to us because what he feels when he sings likely touches something similar inside of each of us - when he talks about having tried to solve hunger in Darfur, don''t we all look at him and think omg those celebrities really are different from the rest of us, aren''t they (?)

Those celebrity who have personal stories attached to an issue seem to have the most success with platforms, like Michael J Fox had trying to get Sen. McCaskill elected on the issue of stem-cell research for Parkinsons, and hopefully Ellen will in getting Prop. 8 rejected, etc. Otherwise it tends to be like wow is that Bono ever a superstar even Oprah seems dazzled by him sort of deal (?)

[caldwellptr]

IF Joe the Plumber can be a pundit, so can Bono.

[bobnjersey]

[Neither singing or writing is real work
but just a paid hobby, get real Friedman.]
[Posted by Markangeloo at 10:31 AM : Oct 28, 2008]

you''re obviously neither a singer or a writer.

what so hard about emptying a garbage can?

[usclimey]

The N.Y. Times has reached a new low in journalism. Now I will be treated to the meaningless musings written by an ersatz pop phenom. If brains were dynamite, Bono wouldn''''t have enough to blow his nose. What''''s next? Madonna as editor? Britney Spears as Bureau Chief?

Posted by attalus

By comparing future Nobel peace prize winner Bono to airheads Britney and Madonna, you just show your complete ignorance of music, talent and philanthropy.

[attalus-2009]

The N.Y. Times has reached a new low in journalism. Now I will be treated to the meaningless musings written by an ersatz pop phenom. If brains were dynamite, Bono wouldn''t have enough to blow his nose. What''s next? Madonna as editor? Britney Spears as Bureau Chief?

[xlib]

Revenue?? Advertisers? Readers?

[markangeloo]

BACK TO BLUE COLLAR

Neither singing or writing is real work
but just a paid hobby, get real Friedman.