"In the future, we will cut through the sludge of history and the sideview will show a landscape of dinosaur bones under this bright layer of neon and sparkles."
Just yesterday, I was wondering if you'd write about this, and lo and behold! overnight you delivered not just yours but various other people's interesting thoughts on the matter. Thanks!
There isn't a lot of money to be made telling people things they don't want to hear.
I don't have anything against Taylor Swift, but man do I wish we could get a break from her for a bit. She feels omnipresent in a way few celebrities ever have. Just take your billion dollars and go hole up on an island for a few years or something! Let us miss you for a bit!
I am hoping for this to be a serious position, but it does have the feel of a cynical ploy to get clicks.
I had to think about this for a day, first because I wasn't sure why this bothered me, then because I asked myself whether I was just being an old white guy about it. But I don't think I am.
There's no question Taylor Swift makes a lot of legitimate news, and I hope they didn't create a new hire because their other reporters turned up their noses at the idea.
But what is a beat for? Why is a beat a beat? It's because there's a complex and interrelated cast of characters and agendas that can only truly be covered by one person who devotes their working life to it. Is that true of Taylor Swift? How many people are, by themselves, the topic of beats? One of your correspondents compared the industry of Taylor Swift to Disney or Apple. That's valid, but do news outlets have people whose entire beat is Disney or Apple?
You have links to stories that have been written about her economic impact, about how the Fed cited her impact, about her battle with Spotify -- what about those stories is lacking? Did anyone really get to the end and say "You know, if there was one reporter on the Taylor Swift beat, this story would have had so much more dimension"? Maybe the Spotify one, but that's about it. Let whoever covers travel and tourism and commercial real estate do the hotels story, etc.
If Gannett really wanted to make this a beat, there's no reason they couldn't have switched a reporter they already had onto it. (Like I said, I hope it wasn't a case where they tried that but everyone said no.) Like I said, she makes legitimate news, but there's no reason someone who covers the legitimate news she makes should have to be a fan.
All that said, the listing does seem to be fairly clear that this job is really just about the present tour and will probably end when it does. Which is probably right -- I mean, I know she's on a very busy and prolific run right now, but what if she goes two years without making an album or touring?