Stay in the Loop
BSR publishes on a weekly schedule, with an email newsletter every Wednesday and Thursday morning. There’s no paywall, and subscribing is always free.
'Best of Philly' at the Constitution Center
Dan Rottenberg
'What were they thinking?' Dept.:
The Constitution Center tackles 'The Best of Philly'
DAN ROTTENBERG
The National Constitution Center’s purpose, according to its website, is “to instill the idea of liberty in the hearts of men and women, girls and boys,” which the Center accomplishes “by teaching the values that the document contains, by showing the struggles that Americans have endured over the decades to widen the circle of liberty.” So what was the Center doing hosting a panel discussion (July 26) on “Behind the Scenes at ‘Best of Philly’ ”?
Having myself been executive editor of Philadelphia Magazine when its “Best of Philly” feature (then known as “The Best and the Worst”) was launched in 1974, I was eager to learn the Constitutional relevance of the baby I’d helped to sire. “This ought to be interesting,” I told myself.
Wrong. The “discussion” turned out to be an unvarnished public relations exercise that was not only irrelevant to the Constitution but boring to boot: It consisted of four current editors of Philadelphia talking about how terrific their magazine is. The session might have delivered some bite— and even some Constitutional significance— had the panel included, say, a critic of Philadelphia magazine, or a competitor, or a former (as opposed to current) editor. It would have been enlightening indeed to hear the views of Ron Javers, who in 1991 lost his job as Philadelphia’s editor in a dispute with publisher David Lipson over “The Best of Philly.” (At the very least, Javers would have challenged the current editors’ bland assurances that the publisher’s advertising concerns never interfere with the “Best of” selection process.)
But such a vigorous exchange apparently didn’t occur to Tony Green, the Center’s vice president of programs and national outreach as well as the event’s MC (and also a Philadelphia Magazine alumnus). Green limply justified the program on the ground that “No one wants to talk about serious issues in August.” Maybe not. But no one wants to waste an hour of a beautiful summer day sitting indoors and listening to the sound of mutual backscratching.
Since the Center opened its doors in 2003, its major challenge has been: How do you dramatize intangible issues for a mass audience? The drama and the issues can be found everywhere in a free society— certainly in a magazine that mixes journalism, marketing and civic promotion. If the National Constitution Center can’t find that drama and those issues, what is its justification? And if people who are paid full-time to think about the Constitution find their minds wandering to a frilly magazine feature, what hope is there for the rest of us?
To view a response, click here.
The Constitution Center tackles 'The Best of Philly'
DAN ROTTENBERG
The National Constitution Center’s purpose, according to its website, is “to instill the idea of liberty in the hearts of men and women, girls and boys,” which the Center accomplishes “by teaching the values that the document contains, by showing the struggles that Americans have endured over the decades to widen the circle of liberty.” So what was the Center doing hosting a panel discussion (July 26) on “Behind the Scenes at ‘Best of Philly’ ”?
Having myself been executive editor of Philadelphia Magazine when its “Best of Philly” feature (then known as “The Best and the Worst”) was launched in 1974, I was eager to learn the Constitutional relevance of the baby I’d helped to sire. “This ought to be interesting,” I told myself.
Wrong. The “discussion” turned out to be an unvarnished public relations exercise that was not only irrelevant to the Constitution but boring to boot: It consisted of four current editors of Philadelphia talking about how terrific their magazine is. The session might have delivered some bite— and even some Constitutional significance— had the panel included, say, a critic of Philadelphia magazine, or a competitor, or a former (as opposed to current) editor. It would have been enlightening indeed to hear the views of Ron Javers, who in 1991 lost his job as Philadelphia’s editor in a dispute with publisher David Lipson over “The Best of Philly.” (At the very least, Javers would have challenged the current editors’ bland assurances that the publisher’s advertising concerns never interfere with the “Best of” selection process.)
But such a vigorous exchange apparently didn’t occur to Tony Green, the Center’s vice president of programs and national outreach as well as the event’s MC (and also a Philadelphia Magazine alumnus). Green limply justified the program on the ground that “No one wants to talk about serious issues in August.” Maybe not. But no one wants to waste an hour of a beautiful summer day sitting indoors and listening to the sound of mutual backscratching.
Since the Center opened its doors in 2003, its major challenge has been: How do you dramatize intangible issues for a mass audience? The drama and the issues can be found everywhere in a free society— certainly in a magazine that mixes journalism, marketing and civic promotion. If the National Constitution Center can’t find that drama and those issues, what is its justification? And if people who are paid full-time to think about the Constitution find their minds wandering to a frilly magazine feature, what hope is there for the rest of us?
To view a response, click here.
Sign up for our newsletter
All of the week's new articles, all in one place. Sign up for the free weekly BSR newsletters, and don't miss a conversation.
