Business as usual
Oh crap, business articles!
I'm guessing The Economist probably has some of those. Probably. The article I found, and proof of my procrastination, is about the collapse of the Japanese stock market. It immediately started talking about cross-shareholding as unique to the Japanese financial culture, and I was immediately confused. AS USUAL. I know I hammer on about my financial ignorance a lot, but really, I can't help it. Not only is this about the stock market, but it is about a stock market not exactly like the one I'm used to hearing about. The problem is when I hear words like "capital," they act more as abstract concepts instead of anything I could grasp. What I did notice in the article is that there are obvious parallels between this crisis and our own, as the government is getting involved by pumping money into some of the shares, which was interesting to me. In regards to business writing, I didn't notice anything too unusual from "regular" writing except that it maybe expects more from it's audience as it can't be concerned with explaining concepts every article to people like me. And thus the cycle continues.
Looking for a business article that I could possibly wrap my little brain around, I headed on over to the New York Times. I found a pretty interesting and equally terrifying one on declining newspaper circulation numbers. It was another five percent this spring from the one before it. Even more depressing, USA Today was one of two to actually going up, suggesting that in troubled times, Americans like colored pie charts. The article at first just addresses some of the facts, and then goes later into an analysis of why circulation is down and how news organizations are trying to combat it. One point I thought was interesting was that by reducing the amount of coverage in newspapers (mainly due to financial problems) and focusing on online news, they are inviting people to quit reading papers. I feel like it could be a valid point, but I don't really see how it could be put into practice without the money or without the understanding that modern audiences like interactive multi-media news sources. I guess what that theory implies is that there should be more content in the papers to make people want to read, but considering they have to be published everyday, I don't see how one could expect the Pioneer Press to turn into The Atlantic.
Finally, I went to the Hollywood Reporter to calm my frazzled nerves. The article I read was about the possibility that the bad economy is leading television networks to be more forgiving with the proverbial cancellation ax. They cite the full season pick-ups of new-ish programs as golden as "Knight Rider" and "Private Practice" which have rating low enough that they would have been canceled any other year. The article suggests that the networks are being a bit more cautious and thrifty and investing more time in things that they have already paid for. Yanking a show that has produced 13 episodes already while only airing 4 is wasteful. Instead, they are going allow some shows more time than usual in the hopes they can find audiences and that they as networks can save money on shows who have already been invested in. If this saves my beloved, yet crucially low rated "Pushing Daisies," I will actually take delight in the economy dying. Because I'm selfish. Every week the show makes me so happy with its sweetness and clever humor that I want to hug everyone I see for about an hour after. With a reaction that strong, I'm afraid of what I will do when it gets taken from me. Regardless, I thought this was a neat article because it showed how the large economy fiasco can cause less important things to suffer and adapt as well.
This really isn't my forte.