Collections - What do you collect?

[southendmd]

I wonder if anybody collects Hummel figurines anymore. They used to be big.

The answer is a big "NO!"  You can't even give them away.  My mother had a modest collection, and they just sat there during the estate sale.  I literally gave them away to friends' children.  I kept one for sentiment's sake.

Most sell for under $10.  The exception is the nativity set, which can go for $500.

[serious crayons]

I once was asked to write a feature story about Lladro, makers of ceramic figurines that are only about one degree less corny than Hummel. (The children aren't quite as chubby-cheeked.) I can't remember what I wrote, but the reason I was asked to do it was because Lladro was an advertiser!!!

That's about the most unethical thing I ever witnessed in my 45 years in journalism. It happened a few times at the New Orleans Times Picayune (where the Lladro assignment happened) in situations I wasn't involved in but heard about. My first newspaper, in a small town in Minnesota, had a special edition once a year called the "Progress Edition," which included stories about local businesses (i.e., big advertisers). They at least paid us extra to write them, but imagine having to write a long story about a grocery store! (The bigger the company's ad budget, the longer the story, and needless to say the story had to be flattering.) At the Duluth News-Tribune, a freelancer once wrote about how you can sell your own house and avoid paying agents' fees. The local agents were so outraged that the editor wrote a ridiculous apology column.

On the other hand, I never saw even the slightest hint of what many people assume goes on in mainstream media outlets all the time: stories written to advance the owners' political agenda. No editor ever gave such instructions to me, and I never heard anybody else mention having it happen to them -- not even over beers!

[Jeff Wrangler]

I wonder if anybody collects Hummel figurines anymore. They used to be big.

The answer is a big "NO!"  You can't even give them away.  My mother had a modest collection, and they just sat there during the estate sale.  I literally gave them away to friends' children.  I kept one for sentiment's sake.

Most sell for under $10.  The exception is the nativity set, which can go for $500.

I imagine the same thing must apply to Beanie Babies.

[Jeff Wrangler]

On the other hand, I never saw even the slightest hint of what many people assume goes on in mainstream media outlets all the time: stories written to advance the owners' political agenda. No editor ever gave such instructions to me, and I never heard anybody else mention having it happen to them -- not even over beers!

OK, I know this isn't a collection topic, but this did make me think about the historical note that it wasn't always the way it was. I think as far back as the 18th century, newspapers did exactly that--advocate one political party or another. I'm thinking that lasted well into the 20th century, and I wonder when the idea took hold that newspapers should be "neutral," not advocate for one side or another.

Papers still get accused of advocating one side or another. (Of course, TV news does it. Think Fox News.) The Letters to the Editor pages of the hometown paper have regularly included letters accusing the editorial board of Liberalism and not publishing conservative points of view--which, of course, is a stupid position because if the editors weren't publishing letters supporting Conservative positions, how are they publishing a letter that accuses them of not publishing letters supporting Conservative positions?

[Front-Ranger]

Well, some people do collect those examples of early yellow journalism, so it could be a collection topic!

I, too, am often surprised that there is not more bias in newspaper reporting. You even see newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal breaking stories that are critical of conservatives, such as the birthday drawing DJT did to Jeffery Epstein. More often these papers show their bias by omitting reporting that should be shining a light on misdeeds.

In my early career I spent much time trying to interest reporters in writing stories about topics my companies thought were newsworthy. I also worked for nonprofits and agricultural organizations with little money for advertising. Looking back, I think PR is not very effective and I think the same of advertising as well. These influencers on the Internet seem to have better luck peddling wares.

[serious crayons]

Well, some people do collect those examples of early yellow journalism, so it could be a collection topic!

I, too, am often surprised that there is not more bias in newspaper reporting. You even see newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal breaking stories that are critical of conservatives, such as the birthday drawing DJT did to Jeffery Epstein.

My ex-husband, a business reporter, reads the WSJ all the time. He says their news reporting is strong and unbiased. But their editorial pages are extremely right-wing (probably in the more traditional sense; AFAIK they're not MAGA).

Looking back, I think PR is not very effective and I think the same of advertising as well. These influencers on the Internet seem to have better luck peddling wares.

I'm not sure. You'd think advertising must be somewhat effective, if only because brands pour so much money into it. Maybe less so now, though, because people stream shows without TV ads, print is dwindling, and online ads are not considered as effective.

According to google, glamorous lifestyle influencers are being replaced by "expert" influencers. I suppose they mean, like, those doctors who tell you whether this or that remedy is effective, or behavioral coaches who tell you what small things make people like you or dislike you. Those are a lot of what I see these days, but of course they're not really intended to sell massive quantities of any particular brands.

I hope PR continues to be effective, though, because my younger son works in that industry. "The dark side," we call it in newspapers. It's financially rewarding, anyway. At 30, he's already making about $15,000 a year more than I made at the pinnacle of my journalism career.

[serious crayons]

I'm thinking that lasted well into the 20th century, and I wonder when the idea took hold that newspapers should be "neutral," not advocate for one side or another.

That's a good question! You'd think they would have gone over that in journalism school, but if they did I don't remember what they said about why that changed or where the current approach came from.

if the editors weren't publishing letters supporting Conservative positions, how are they publishing a letter that accuses them of not publishing letters supporting Conservative positions?

Maybe it's a distraction technique! They publish the letters so they can get away with not publishing any columns. Probably not, though.

Throughout my career newspapers have been accused by both sides of being biased. Within the paper, we've always said if both sides think so, we must be doing something right. These days, though, the criticism from conservatives is probably closer to the truth -- that is, if you think it's "biased" to say Biden won the 2020 election or other ridiculous untruths. So yes, those beliefs are crazy but they're right that newspapers don't publish them as legit news!  The accusations from the left are actually more wrong. Most mainstream news outlets point out when Trump says something false, for instance. But lefties seem to want papers to insert "Trump is an evil, egomaniacal, demented dictator" into every story. I mean, that's true, but they're not going to say that. 

[Jeff Wrangler]

I'm not sure. You'd think advertising must be somewhat effective, if only because brands pour so much money into it. Maybe less so now, though, because people stream shows without TV ads, print is dwindling, and online ads are not considered as effective.

The hometown newspaper still carries inserts from supermarkets advertising prices or sale prices of items. Is that done elsewhere?

[Jeff Wrangler]

Throughout my career newspapers have been accused by both sides of being biased. Within the paper, we've always said if both sides think so, we must be doing something right. These days, though, the criticism from conservatives is probably closer to the truth -- that is, if you think it's "biased" to say Biden won the 2020 election or other ridiculous untruths. So yes, those beliefs are crazy but they're right that newspapers don't publish them as legit news!  The accusations from the left are actually more wrong. Most mainstream news outlets point out when Trump says something false, for instance. But lefties seem to want papers to insert "Trump is an evil, egomaniacal, demented dictator" into every story. I mean, that's true, but they're not going to say that. 

I'll give the editors of the hometown paper this much: they publish syndicated columns from both Liberals and Conservatives.

[Front-Ranger]

Maybe you could call this a collection. I have a pile of maps in a desk drawer. 

I thought you collected model trains and accessories. No more?