Oops wrong thread. I was looking for something on ted kennedy.
Circulation might not be as low if the papers would stick to reporting news, and leave commentary to the editorial page. Even the younger people – 20-somethings- see it if their comments at my favorite watering hole are an indication. Most seem to use the morning paper for the comics, crossword and movie schedules and ignore the “news” sections.
Around 20 years ago the Chicago Tribune bought both our morning and afternoon papers. They soon closed the afternoon paper leaving only the morning paper – which they use to “educate” us poor dumb Southern Redneck Republicans in the Right Way of Thinking.
I take it as part of Cronkite's damnation that he's lived long enough to witness the ramifications of what his bias helped create.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I have often hear people say, " I do not follow the news, it's too depressing". I tell them, "that is the desired effect, they want you not paying attention."
An amusing part of this was that it appeared a day earlier electronically than in print--
Bias aside, a big problem with newspapers is that they contain lots of information that may not appeal to every customer. That is to say they are too generalized. For example: if I buy a paper, I end up tossing more than 1/2 of it unread; Sports, "Arts & Leisure," "Help Wanted," "Automobiles", and usually the Business section gets dumped. Sure there are days that I want to leaf through the Automobiles section, but I do my real car shopping on-line.
Oof!
I must be awfully dense, but I'm trying to work out why a video game player, etc. is considered part of the media.
There is a dynamic that goes wanting in this article. Will touches on it, but doesn't cash in to my way of thinking.
When I was young, I did value the print medium. It was a time when the print media did do investigative reporting. They did it because of their bias, but at least they did it.
Look at the different approaches, the investigations of Nixon vs those of Clinton. With Nixon they scrounged and dug for every paltry clue they could come up with. They even made up fictitious characters and stated they were "Deep Throat". During Clinton's tenure, bonified witnesses were shreded. During Nixon's nobody even demanded who Deep Throat was, much less attacked their character. Thirty plus years down the turnpike, and we still don't know who Deep Throat was, and essentially it doesn't matter.
With the evaporation of credibility, came the evaporation of readership. Will secumbs to the theory that exploding sources of media induced the decline of the print media. I'll buy that to an extent, but if the major paper in my region were unbiased, if it did execute investigative journalism without bias, if it was credible, it would be hitting my doorstep each morning.
It isn't. It doesn't.
People can lay off the decline of the MSM's strangle-hold on the nation as an indication of declining knowledge seeking youth. To an extent that is undoubtedly true. What goes unsaid, is that many of them are quite aware of the bias of the MSM, and just opt out of being lied to.
What this does create though, is an atmosphere where youth can be led astray by lefist propaganda. It has amazed me how some today have bought into the leftist Marxist agenda lock stock and barrel. That is an unfortunate offshoot of remaining MSM influence, and an increasing leftist propaganda effort that captures some young minds and destroys them.
One must recognize though, that the youth are not the only ones affected by this dynamic. Witness a time when the likes of John Kerry could gain a respectable slice of the vote. Even in the 70's, during the hey day of leftist propaganda in the United States, George McGovern was swamped by those who saw him for what he was.
Pitty those in our time didn't see John Kerry as clearly.
5.56mm
Several Wisconsin state Senators held a series of hearings on the issue of voter identification - which is quite contentious here. One of the hearings was held in my community. Many local people showed up and testified, and most of them testified in favor of requiring voters to produce ID. A rat representative saw fit to attend, and was one of the few people to speak against the proposed measure.
The local leftist newspaper attended and reported on the press conference held by the 'rat rep before the hearing. They interviewed several of the handful of union lefties who showed up from outside the community to speak against the measure. They interviewed one token proponent of the bill, and devoted an entire sentence of the article to his viewpoint.
They did not cover the actual hearing.
Is it any wonder that I don't subscribe to this newspaper? I would like to subscribe, if only for the local content - but cannot bring myself to do so.
Why SHOULD I read the paper when I can send JimRob a donation and read it here instead?
I've already heard and know the latest news through talk radio and/or FreeRepublic and Drudge.
There's damn little journalism to consume. Even what should be simple articles can't or won't give you the "who, what, where, when and how".
Local TV news is even worse. Last week I heard teasers for the 11 o'clock news which included breaking news on a sanitation worker observed urinating in the driveway of an alert crimestopper citizen and a real tear jerker about a dog that was run over. I know that 'if it bleeds, it leads', but it has become laughably absurd.
Dump a Paper - Save a Tree
Ironically the only way I ever read the eloquent George Will is on the Internet.