When Modest Ideas Go Wrong

One of the new features in the Peck-era Commercial Appeal is a weekly column in the Sunday paper called "Java Jive." (Not sure if there's a link. Not gonna look either. Don't worry.) It's not a bad idea: coffee shops are hot again; interesting conversation happens; let's capture the pulse of the coffee house set. Every week, different baristas at local coffee houses write of the hot topics of the week. The problem seems to be in the execution.

The paper depends on in-store folks to write the columns. Some are transparent, writing about what's going on, transmitting their customers' zeitgeist fairly well.

Others fall to temptation and turn their moment in the paper into a soapbox for their own political or social causes. Julie Ray of Cafe Francisco seems to be a repeat offender. For example, this week she promotes the cause of animal adoption. Now maybe this is a big deal with CF customers, but her part of the column (half again more than her counterpart's bit) is a name-check of people and institutions supporting the cause.

Nothing wrong with promoting the things you care about, but there is when you subvert expectations. Maybe the section editor, Emily Adams Keplinger, should wield a heavier hand.

MONDAY MORNING UPDATE An astute reader (the finest kind) points out, via email:

Your criticism is spot-on, but you failed to notice that Java Jive is in the "Appeal" section, which in the "new" CA means all rules of journalism are
suspended. [...]Appeal section articles are mostly written by PR flacks, business owners, and those who wish to have their events publicized. The problem, of course, is that most readers don't know that the rules change when you finish the Metro section and move to Appeal. In the Metro section, journalistic standards (of a sort) are upheld. In the Appeal, it's "All About YOU!" The confusion even extends to the website. If you do a search on "coffee," for instance, you'll retrieve the shameless plugs from Appeal as well as whatever "real" articles have been written on the subject.

Very good point about blurred lines and making distinctions visible. (BTW, I tested comments and they seem to be working fine. I edited the email very slightly in case the emailer still wants anonymity.)

I also meant to link to this Flypaper Theory post along similar lines. Thank you both!