(Potpourri) I've taken the week off from work, and seem to be sliding into Lazy Mode at the moment. There are a few other minor items floating around, but I can't for the life of me bring myself to write extensively about them. Nonetheless:
- In an interview that I strongly suspect was conducted before Marvel's proposal to solve the dispute through mediation, retailer Brian Hibbs spoke to ICv2 about his ongoing class-action lawsuit against the company over its refusal to honor its own Terms of Sale regarding returnable product.
- The Pulse has Diamond Distribution's 300 top-selling comics for the month of March.
- Japan Today is reporting that electronics firm Matsushita has developed a 500 gram, hand-held e-book reader with a resolution roughly equivalent to that of a high-definition television. Downloadable comics, anyone?
Finally, NeilAlien offers his take on Andrew Arnold's comments on why the Journal missed getting nominated in the Eisners this year; unfortunately, Neil's own bias tricks him into missing the point on several levels.
First, Neil's headline is both correct and entirely fair -- the awards committee's bias was in fact the reported reason we didn't get nominated. And you know what? That's fine. Our track record at pissing off the rest of the industry was established a long time ago, and nobody here at Elitist Bastard HQ is complaining about the ramifications -- in fact, when I first passed the link to Arnold's commentary around to The Usual Suspects, the replies were universally ones of sardonic bemusement. We take our stands, others take theirs. That's simply how it works.
Getting to the heart of Neil's complaint, it's my firm belief that unless mathematics are involved, there's simply no such thing as "objectivity". Screw the smell tests; everyone has a point of view, regardless of whether or not they express it openly. Even in supposedly bias-free news reporting, the very act of selecting which facts are presented and how much emphasis they receive is in and of itself governed by the assumptions a reporter brings to the table, and anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you snake-oil. Commentary? Forget it. I'd rather give an ear to someone who states their bias at the outset, and then proceeds to vigorously defend it -- to his credit, Neil usually fits this mold himself -- than someone solemnly trying to convince me of their impartiality. You can judge a given piece by the accuracy of the facts presented, but using the golden purity of the reporter's heart as a benchmark is just silly; no such animal exists. Objectivity is bullshit.
(I should of course note that this is my own opinion here, not the Official TCJ Party Line. Your mileage may vary, depending on who else in the office you speak to... but then, that's rather my point, now isn't it?)
Further, Neil misreads what I was trying to get at in this mini-essay on the ease with which the comics press can be bought through access to interviews and promotional materials. I never said The Comics Journal's editors and writers didn't have their own points of view; I merely noted that those points of view weren't for sale in the same way they were in the rest of the industry press. Again, Neil conflates the propensity for bias with the ability of outside sources to influence coverage by selective use of carrots and sticks. We saw an excellent example of this corruptive power recently when it was revealed that CNN had for years downplayed known Iraqi atrocities (or worse, refused to report them altogether) in exchange for access and the right to place news-teams in Baghdad. I certainly wouldn't make a direct comparison with CNN's misdeeds and, say, The Comics Buyers Guide's Don Thompson refusing to write negative reviews after Marvel withheld advertising over a review it felt went too far; the stakes are far too different in each case. Nonetheless, the basic principle at work is the same. If you're dependent on the subject of your coverage for access and information, the end result is compromised by the need to stay in their good graces.
As I noted, The Comics Journal has a long track record of standing by and watching as the subjects of news-items, reviews and commentary withdrew advertising and ordered employees not to talk to us, rather than altering our coverage. Does this make us "pure"? No, and I never claimed otherwise. It does however make us untainted by direct collusion, and in the end that's the most important thing you can ask of a reporter, a reviewer or a pundit. How you process what they have to say is up to you.
Well, hot damn -- looks like I had something worth ranting about after all!
Update: As previously noted, Franklin Harris has also shared his thoughts on the subject. Assuming I don't get the chance to do so sooner, I'll respond next Monday.
