Why, it was the inventor of the Internet who killed the newspaper!
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.
Why, it was the inventor of the Internet who killed the newspaper!
Related...
More media, less news
http://economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7827135
It was suicide.
Whoever kills the MSM papers, deserves a Nobel prize.
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.
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... )
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.
"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.
No media bias here.
Propagandists masquerading as journalists - killed themselves
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.
The newspapers did because they won't report news.
Barrett Report anyone???
The death of newspapers isn't a murder, not even manslaughter - it is suicide.
You know something?
I take in an enormous amount of news compared to the average bear.
But I haven't watched news coverage outside of Fox News on tv for jeeze, but be 25 years now.
And I don't think I've picked up a newspaper for over 10 years.
I HATE network news. CNN sucks. MSNBC is stupid.
But Fox and FR and LGF and Foxnews.com and google news, and of course conservative radio shows and outlets like that provide me all the news I need. I get it from multiple sources so i can pretty well check who's got the agenda.
haven't watched network news since I saw the same AIDS scare as the top news story on all 3 networks. same story, just different people. Wasn't worth my time.
I'm ravenous for news, but not for other peoples crusades.
What is killing the newsrags? The same thing that is killing newsmags like The Economist: the inability to print the truth. The Economist is as big a culprit in the newslying as The Slimes and other far left dailies. They do nothing but print stories bashing Bush and Blair. And I used to subscribe to it.
I know, I'm in the minority, but I've been getting my news online since about 1994/95ish... but did grow up reading newspapers, and I did resubscribe to our local paper a few years ago for business reasons, and even though they are online as well, I am glad I did.
I don't have time to read the paper every day, but I definately read MORE of the paper when I receive it in print form than I do from the web versions.
My local paper clearly has a liberal bias, the op ed pages are mind numbing to try to read through. However, I still read the paper, and can point out bias routinely, I still find it useful information...
I know, I know.. I'm in the minority... I don't have Cable, I rarely watch broadcast news other than PBS nightly broadcast which I do from time to time watch, and I read the newspaper fairly regularly, and get probably the bulk of my news online. And I'm far from retirement age... just shy of 35.
I think personally the death of the daily newspaper is overstated. Will it be what it once was? Never.. but the idea that it'll cease to exist is comical.
As long as there are bowel movements and bus rides, there will be people reading newspapers.
(waving hand wildly in the air...)
The elite mediot maggot infected owners of ABCNNBCBS and publishers of the major dinosaur fishwraps are the modern day, Norman Bates. They are trying to keep the corpses alive by refusing to admit that they are dead and to bury them.
Buy my Dinosaur Fishwrap stock, NYT. The old gray lady is just fine!
