Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mad Dawgg
It would have a lot longer if they apologized for previous liberal bias and began engaging in real journalism. Circulation would skyrocket! Young people would learn about the new (old) way of reading newspapers.

Well, that's not going to happen but too bad. It would be great to see.
3 posted on 02/13/2018 5:04:41 AM PST by \/\/ayne (I regret that I have but one subscription cancellation notice to give to my local newspaper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: \/\/ayne

No ‘young person’ was willingly going to buy old print newspapers to read after about five years ago. Computer, tablet, phones - digital only.


15 posted on 02/13/2018 5:33:09 AM PST by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: \/\/ayne
Young people would learn about the new (old) way of reading newspapers.

I am a former heavy newspaper reader. I grew up with a morning and evening paper, and sometimes bought the New York Times for coverage of the '76 primaries. I also subscribed or read weekly papers like The Wanderer and Human Events.

No more. It is not just that the newspapers have gotten more liberal, but they are pretty much obsolete. The three most read parts of the newspaper in the '70s were the front page, comics, weather and stocks. Internet coverage of weather and stocks is up to the minute, and far more filterable. Looking at stocks in the few papers that still have them is pretty much a nostalgic turn, and nothing more.

The front page is old news between Internet and constant cable news streams. The comics continue to shrink, and most are of lower quality. Dilbert and Get Fuzzy are still solid, not a whole lot else, and both Dilbert and Get Fuzzy have an easily used on-line presence.

The weekly papers and news magazines are old news, and their in-depth coverage is easily matched at sites like Free Republic, which is an effective aggregator.

Being comparatively conservative didn't help the Boston Herald, and the Washington Times never made money, and the Washington Star before that failed a long time ago.

The New York Times will still exist for the same reason the Washington Times does: its value as an established promoter of a point of view compensates for the fact that it is a money loser. Newsweek may fail completely because it no longer has the prestige it used to have, so rich folks may no longer be willing to subsidize it.
31 posted on 02/13/2018 7:14:23 AM PST by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: \/\/ayne
Young people would learn about the new (old) way of reading newspapers.

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there. Young people want their news spoon-fed to them on Twitter and Facebook feeds. That's why they are so thoroughly brainwashed.


33 posted on 02/13/2018 7:38:53 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson