Posted on 05/29/2004 7:59:14 AM PDT by nwrep
I wonder how the Inky fared?
The County Press, a good little weekly in suburban Philadelphia.
The Gazette, Colo. Springs
One question about these numbers...Anyone who travels on business, and stays in any decent hotel, anywheres in the US, knows that the McPaper is left outside your room everymorning, compliments of the hotel....so, what do thety give awya every day..500,000,750,000.what..and that number count towards their circulation...me, I just step right over it every time...
Just ditched the Houston Chronicle after 10 years - couldn't take it anymore. I get all my news from either the internet or Fox News.
Holy !@@@. The Detroit News dropped that much? For years they were bigger than the Free Press. Gannett f'ed them up badly.
Heh. If you want some real lessons in liberal BS try the Austin Chronicle...
Yeah, you could pretty much tell which day of the week it was by which oppressed minority had a picture on the front cover.
LOL! I might add that, compared to Bill Clinton, John Kerry is pretty honest.
Here is the final exchange that I had with Dallas Morning News reporter Michelle Mittelstadt regarding the different reporting standards for conservatives and liberals (thanks to Freepers for some of the research that I cited in the e-mail!). She was very kind and responsive and I have nothing bad to say about her -- I consider her one of the the "good guys" at the Morning News. However, in the typical Dallas Morning News group-think mentality, she justified not printing some story about John Kerry (I forget what it was now) because the Morning News had to do more research. She pointed out that a big part of journalists' jobs was "sifting fact from fiction" and gave an example about how a colleague of hers ended up being the subject of a story that was later proven false.
In my reply e-mail to her below I referred her to this Dallas Morning News story that she had co-authored a few days earlier about Bush's supposed National Guard troubles. Checking out posts on FR and Googling for 5 minutes convinced me that the Dallas Morning News had done NO research to verify the credibility of their source.
The Morning News should have issued a huge apology for doing such shoddy research on the story that I cited but, to my knowledge, none was ever made. Michelle Mittelstadt usually has higher standards (I blame her co-author, Wayne Slater, for 95% of the story's problems) but it's "reporting" like this that has turned people away from newspapers.
By the way, Ms. Mittelstadt replied that she would forward my research to others (presumably Wayne Slater). I'm sure that she did but they conveniently never replied back. When I see Wayne Slater's name at the top of a story, I automatically presume that it's fiction -- other Freepers have said that they do the same thing..
The Dallas Morning News' circulation has dropped by 3.9% over the past year (despite a growing population in the area and very heavy marketing) and I can guarantee you that the paper will be having meetings this week about how they can increase sales by having bigger full-color "human interest" pictures of cute kittens, women, children, and minorities on the front page to appeal to a broader section of the population. That's all very nice but they just can't seem to recognize that bad, biased reporting is the real reason for the circulation drop. It's like the alcoholic who blames his troubles on everything but his drinking.
[Dear Ms. Mittelstadt]
Thanks - I won't bug you any more after this e-mail but I would argue that "sifting fact from fiction" is exactly what was NOT done with the recent article that used Bill Burkett as a source. Burkett has changed his story from this one during the 2000 campaign. In 2000, Burkett denied that the Bush team had "doctored" Bush's military records; now he's claiming that in 97 he heard orders over a speakerphone from Joe Allbaugh to destroy damaging records. Check out the link that I provided.
Why did Burkett change his story so radically since 2000 and how can he now remember with such clarity an event that he apparently couldn't remember 4 years ago? I'm no journalist but I believe that this source has a severe credibility problem.
Further, Burkett has long been a vocal Bush opponent and has other credibility issues, such as this court case where he sued his superior officers for denying him military medical care. His case was dismissed by the trial court and was thrown out again when he appealed. He was featured in a story for Pacifica Radio, which is somewhere to the ideological left of Joe Stalin, that they titled Former Texas Army National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett on Bush the Chicken hawk. He's not a disinterested party when it comes to Bush.
My point is this: there seems to be an awful lot of care to make sure that the Kerry story has substance while there was evidently quite a bit less care taken in the story (front-page, if I remember correctly) that used Burkett as the main source. All I want is for the press to apply the same standard to both conservative and liberal candidates.
Just to let you know, I do vote for fiscally and socially conservative candidates but I have no connection to anyone's campaign or to any special interest group - feel free to research me if you wish to confirm that I'm a nobody. I write software and occasionally write articles for trade journals for a living but keeping up with politics is just a hobby for me.
Best regards,
-Michael XXXXXXXXX
I like how thorough and polite you are throughout the whole exchange. If you could make an impact on at least once media type it would be worth the effort.
I cancelled my NY Times more than 2 years ago and never missed it. When I want a paper to read on the subway, I spend a quarter for the NY Post.
The WSJ is unusual, though, in that their news group and editorial group are completely independent. The news group is pretty liberal, but the editorial group is quite conservative.
Ah, I was not clear in what I meant to 'measure', sorry I ment to suggest that the *liberal* press was taking a greater beating than the numbers suggested. To measure that properly, of course, one would subtract out not just the Wall Street Journal but the (few) other non-liberal papers. I just do a rough cut at that number by subtracting out only the WSJ numbers (because it was easy and I am lazy). Given all that, the fall in (the rough estimate) of liberal paper circulation is even more than reported for total circulation. Good news.
Why waste money on a newpaper when you can get all the liberal slime you want on network TV for free?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.