Media Relevance Quotes

We're in this industry, we feel like we need to be plugged into a news cycle all day long. You feel like if you're not commenting on the news 24 hours a day, seven days a week, you're not going to be relevant.

That's the problem with news interviews, you work your tail off to get prominent figures in the news on the radio, but once they've been on, the event passes, the urgency, the issues you talked about evaporate.

I'm a believer that we should support various forms of representation because they clearly resonate with unheard groups of people, and for such a huge project like 'Riverdale,' this kind of representation is fundamentally important.

The movie I've watched a million times is 'A Face in the Crowd,' directed by Elia Kazan, starring Andy Griffith and Patricia Neal. I first saw this movie, I guess I was in my early 20s. I'd never heard of it, and somebody told me about it, and I watched it and was just completely jaw-droppingly shocked at how current it was.

Digital platforms are worthless without content. They're shiny sacks with bells and whistles, but without content, they're empty sacks. It is not about pixels versus print. It is not about how you're reading. It is about what you're reading.

Digital television, satellite radio, videogames, iPods - so much media. Do books even matter anymore?

I don't even read 'the Sun' and it's my job to read everything that's politically important. I think that's a symbol of the declining power of the mainstream media.

What part of media doesn't need to connect with their customers more smartly?

Ever noticed that no matter what happens in one day, it exactly fits in the newspaper?

Every good journalist is aware that his trade may one day go the way of phrenology-and, what's more, the population will hardly protest the extinction.

I don't know where this thing about me being a travel writer comes from. It's nothing to do with me; I hate travel writing. I don't do it - I do it a little bit, but not much. I don't believe in it. I think it's over. The world is so saturated now that you don't need it.

Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism.

Most films, it doesn't matter if you see them or not.

No film should be meaningless.

Print is at the very, very top in the fashion business - of course it is.

The quality of our journalism will make or break our industry, not the recession.

It's funny how sometimes historians sneer at journalists, yet they depend on us in the future for the material that they mine. You realize that some of the stories wouldn't have been told if you hadn't gotten to them. There is that sense of capturing a moment that was just about to go over the horizon.

Journalists have no choice but to fight back because if they don't, they will become irrelevant.

TV is still a 'push' medium - we are broadcasting into any home or business with basic cable, and depending on what's happening in the world, we have a wider audience, from news junkies to very sporadic viewers. On TV, you want your reporting to be valuable to that entire audience and be relevant.

If it's done right, radio can just be far more important than television.

If MSNBC went off the air tomorrow, what difference would it make? If the 'Huffington Post' went out of business tomorrow, what difference would it make?

If you're not entertaining, what the hell's the point?

I think it sort of dawns on you that if you're not gigging constantly you're not actually relevant. You may be relevant to a different part of the media now, to television commissioners and editors, but to a young live-comedy audience you're not, really.

The newspaper offers something very different from Google's aggregators. It offers a value system, an idea of what matters in the world. Newspapers need to start articulating that value.

You find movies when you need them. They may not always be the best films, but they speak to you.