In Order to Save the 'Voice' They Must Destroy It?
Heterodox thought on the Voice massacres: Messy and dispiriting and disrespectful to longtimers and legends though this period may be, perhaps all the messiness will make the paper once again something actually, you know, interesting and worth reading?
It seems to us that's the implicit question raised in Gabe Sherman's thorough look at the ur-alt-weekly's recent tumult:
[Village Voice Media editorial chief Michael] Lacey made it clear that though his chain had bought The Voice, he didn't have much taste for the newspaper as it was constituted....
In a phone conversation, Mr. Lacey said that all the changes are designed to create space for more magazine-style reported pieces. Commentary, at least as currently practiced in The Village Voice, has no place in the New Times regime....
"All that chatter, all that blogging — it's people writing about what other people have reported. We can our wrap our hands around the throat of the beast, find out what happened, and give that to readers," he said. "It's fun. It's a kick-ass way to make a living. We have found a way for all the troublemakers at the back of the school bus to make a living. You want to sit in your room and ruminate? Not on my nickel."...
"The original Voice was an iconoclastic newspaper," said New Yorker media critic Ken Auletta, who covered city politics for The Voice in the early 70's. "Increasingly, the paper became predictable. You would pick up a headline and know what's in a story. Despite the fact it's now free, you'd walk by it and not read it because you'd know what's in it."...
Actual, unexpected, compelling, reported articles in the Voice? Perhaps from some fresh voices? That Lacey's a madman.
