Skip to comments.
Who killed the newspaper?
The Economist ^
| Aug 24th 2006
| Not Named
Posted on 08/24/2006 11:00:11 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
This is a pretty comprehensive look at the future of newspapers. Although some FReepers will disagree with the premise in the first paragraph; I think that (prior to the Internet) it's true. TV is too glib and focused on the entertainment value of news. Radio is too ephemeral. Movies are an entertainment medium -- the recent eruption of crockumentaries only underscores this. Movies are good for propaganda -- not for enlightenment. The era of the movie news reel is over.
Of course, the notion that newspapers are the most useful bit of the media is to be expected from a newspaper article. (Despite being published weekly in a newsmagazine format, The Economist considers itself a newspaper, not a magazine. Don't ask me what the difference is.)
NewAssignment.Net sounds like a significant development -- I wonder whether it will allow equal access to conservatives and liberals, or whether it will be even more biased than most MSM newspapers.
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Who killed the newspaper? Why, it was the inventor of the Internet who killed the newspaper!
2
posted on
08/24/2006 11:01:44 AM PDT
by
Lunatic Fringe
(Man Law: You Poke It, You Own It)
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
The fishwraps aren't the only thing that's dying out ...
3
posted on
08/24/2006 11:03:09 AM PDT
by
tx_eggman
(The people who work for me wear the dog collars. It's good to be king. - ccmay)
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
4
posted on
08/24/2006 11:04:00 AM PDT
by
abb
(The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
5
posted on
08/24/2006 11:04:19 AM PDT
by
LIConFem
(Just opened a new seafood restaurant in Great Britain, called "Squid Pro Quid")
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Whoever kills the MSM papers, deserves a Nobel prize.
6
posted on
08/24/2006 11:06:58 AM PDT
by
pissant
There aren't really print journalists anymore - if there ever was.
There are only editorialists and naive reporters with no real experience and no education except grammar, spelling and liberalism.
They only survived as a monopoly which no longer exists.
7
posted on
08/24/2006 11:08:12 AM PDT
by
D-fendr
To: abb
8
posted on
08/24/2006 11:10:19 AM PDT
by
SaxxonWoods
(Free Iran! WARNING! Forbidden Cartoon: .. . *-O(( :-{>. . . .)
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
This year Morgan Stanley, an investment bank, attacked the New York Times Company, the most august journalistic institution of all, because its share price had fallen by nearly half in four years. Not anymore, and frankly not for some time now. The NY Times went over to the dark side around 1994, during Clinton's first term. Their bias and arrogance began the decline, it's only a matter of time before 'Pinch' Sulzberger, and others, high up on the NY Times masthead are gone. The NY Times will survive in some form but will never experience the prestige it once had ... that is over.
9
posted on
08/24/2006 11:12:50 AM PDT
by
BluH2o
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA; All
Well, to give admittedly anecdotal perspective, I dropped the local paper in 1999.
Even then, it was 80% ads for stuff I mostly didn't care about, and a mouthpiece for the School Board/County Commissioners. ( hint: they never have enough ( tax ) money. For the Children... )
10
posted on
08/24/2006 11:15:54 AM PDT
by
backhoe
(-30-)
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Rush Limbaugh explains it best:
You go to any large journalism school and ask one of the students why they want to be a journalist and they'll inevitably say, "Because I want to make a difference! I want to change the world!"
Well that's wrong! Journalists used to tell us what happened, where it happened, when it happened, who it happened to, and how it happened. Want to change the world? Join a religious order or run for office. Volunteer for something. But this idea that journalism is about changing the world and making a difference is poppycock! And it's leading to journalism's decline.
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
"Having ignored reality for years, newspapers are at last doing something. In order to cut costs, they are already spending less on journalism."
The newspapers started killing themselves decades ago when they replaced journalism with leftist propaganda.
12
posted on
08/24/2006 11:19:38 AM PDT
by
BadAndy
("Loud mouth internet Rambo")
To: LIConFem
13
posted on
08/24/2006 11:20:49 AM PDT
by
iceskater
(One person's mess is another person's filing system.)
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Of course, the internet panders to closed minds; No media bias here.
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Propagandists masquerading as journalists - killed themselves
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Are today's news organisations up to the task of sustaining the informed citizenry on which democracy depends? asked a recent report about newspapers from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, a charitable research foundation. If one is to judge by the output of the New York Times -- who are committed to promoting an agenda rather than "informing the citizenry" -- the answer is a deafening "NO!"
In future, argues Carnegie, some high-quality journalism will also be backed by non-profit organisations.
A very bad outcome. Inasmuch as non-profit organisations tend be a.) very wealthy, b.) unaccountable and c.) devoted to the leftist agenda.
16
posted on
08/24/2006 11:30:30 AM PDT
by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
To: BluH2o
The NY Times was slime back during WWII. It has always been a Marxist rag sheet and will be to the day its doors are closed down and it press facilities converted into childs party centers.
17
posted on
08/24/2006 11:35:46 AM PDT
by
EQAndyBuzz
("If you liked what Liberal Leadership did for Israel, you'll LOVE what it can do for America!")
To: Alas Babylon!
Winston Churchill describing the battle of Omdurman,September 1, 1898.
"I DO not doubt that the reader is as anxious to see the walls of Omdurman and to come to the end of the affair, as were the army on the morning of the 1st of September.
Whether this is because I have interested him in the impending battle, or wearied him with the monotonies of the march, I shall not presume to inquire.
But he shall at any rate start at once with the cavalry, nor will I palter with tales of how the chilled soldiers warmed themselves before the fires that lighted the camp and cooked the breakfasts of a hurried meal; of carbines, rusted by the rain, swabbed with oil to make their bolts slide; of weary horses once more saddled---lame, girth-galled, or sore-backed notwithstanding; of great masses of brown-clad, armed men forming silently under the stars, while the light grew gently in the east. These are impressions he must some day gather for himself or forgo for ever.
The British and Egyptian cavalry, supported by the Camel Corps and Horse Artillery, trotted out rapidly, and soon interposed a distance of eight miles between them and the army. As before, the 21st Lancers were on the left nearest the river, and the Khedival squadrons curved backwards in a wide half-moon to protect the right flank.
While we were moving off, the gunboat flotilla was seen to be in motion. The white boats began to ascend the stream leisurely. Yet their array was significant. Hitherto they had moved at long and indefinite intervals---one following, perhaps a mile, or even two miles, behind the other. Now a regular distance of about 300 yards was observed. Our orders were to reconnoiter Omdurman; their task to bombard it.
We had not accomplished more than a mile, when about a hundred enormous vultures joined us, and henceforth they accompanied the 21st Lancers, flying or waddling lazily from bush to bush, and always looking back at the horsemen.
Throughout the Sudan it is believed that this portends ill-fortune, and that the troops over which vultures circle will suffer heavy losses. Although the ominous nature of the event was not known to us, officers and men alike were struck by the strange and unusual occurrence; and it was freely asserted that these birds of prey knew that two armies were approaching each other, and that this meant a battle, and hence a feast.
It would be difficult to assign limitations to the possibilities of instinct. The sceptic must at least admit that the vultures guessed aright, even if they did not know. Yet we thought them wrong, when we found the steep Kerreri Hills abandoned and the little Dervish camp, which had been shelled the day before, deserted and solitary.
The regiment halted at the foot of the Kerreri Hills as soon as it was known these were deserted. The scouts, Colonel Martin and a few other officers, ascended, taking signalers with them. We waited, eating some breakfast. Then presently a message was sent down which filled us all with curiosity to look over the crest. The signal-flag wagged tirelessly, and we spelt out the following words: "Khartoum in sight." More than thirteen years had passed since an Englishman could have said that with truth."
Nowadays, there are no reporters, only opinion scribblers.
18
posted on
08/24/2006 11:59:15 AM PDT
by
managusta
(corruptissima republica plurimae leges)
To: D-fendr
Leftist editors, ignorant leftist reporters, and biased leftist news services (AP) killed their own golden goose by their own stupidity.
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
The newspapers did because they won't report news.
Barrett Report anyone???
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson