Posted on 10/20/2009 2:07:50 PM PDT by George Stupidnopolis
Having worked in, on, and around newspapers for over two decades, I can say with some authority that the vast majority of reporters, editors, and publishers are about as sharp as a pound of wet leather. The general consensus amongst their fraternity is, quite simply, that readers are too addle-brained to know what is good for them. The conventional wisdom within the hallowed swamps of journalism is that your garden variety reader doesn’t know what is important, that they are a wrong-thinking lot who put on their shoes and socks in that order. Journalists, as a rule, feel that the unwashed masses should be force-fed “the truth,” that they require some sort of Kubrickian, Clockwork Orange procedure in order to get their minds right.
Of course, readers immediately recognize such hubris as a load of malarkey. Their response is to simply quit reading the newspaper. There might have been a time when readers believed that newspapers attempted at least a semblance of objectivity, roughly around the time when the Hula Hoop and those new-fangled television sets first came into vogue, but that era has gone the way of the dodo.
Thus, in the dark days of 2009, newspapers are faced with the reality of staff terminations, lay-offs, falling ad rates, and a massive Diaspora of readers. Other industries, confronting the same challenges, would strive to discover and solve the problem. They would make an attempt to discern what their customers wanted, re-tool, re-group, and seek to do a better job.
But, that’s just not how life works within the uber-arrogant mindset of journalism. You see, to them, plummeting profits are the fault of those pesky, idiot readers. Those members of the trailer-trash club simply won’t listen. They simply don’t care about the single-sided coverage they are provided. Those politically incorrect freaks and geek actually want objectivity, or at the very least, neutrality.
Such being the case, newspaper owners have but one recourse. They seek a government bailout.
According to a paper commissioned by the Columbia University Journalism School, and Columbia professor Michael Schudson (co-authored by former Washington Post Executive Editor, Len Downie) the print media deserves federal assistance. They believe that the government, publicly funded universities, and private, philanthropic organizations should step in to save journalism.
I don’t quite get this. With a few notable exceptions, what is there to save? For most businesses (the car and banking industry notwithstanding, as they have already been nationalized) an enterprise which refuses to provide customers with the product they seek is allowed to die an appropriate death. If you decide to open a butcher shop in the middle of Calcutta, and advertise beef briskets from sacred cows, you pretty much deserve what you get.
However, the traditional journalism industry believes it is a cut above. They assume their customer base is nothing but a collection of one-toothed peons and web-footed miscreants who are barely able to get through the day without soiling themselves. In their minds, newspapers should receive a dispensation from failure because they are providing an invaluable public service.
In other words, journalists feel it is their sworn duty to save the tongue-chewers from themselves.
The grand Pooh-Bahs of journalism are asking for breaks in the tax codes that will allow local newspapers to function as non-profit groups. This is not to be confused as the sort of non-profit groups that lose money every quarter because they provide a crummy product, for newspapers have already gotten that one down pat. The status they prefer is non-profit in the sense that taxpayers bend over, smile, and fund the paper’s losses. They also hope to be given fees from telecom organizations and Internet providers in the form of grants, which would allow them to continue to function as little but the government hacks and public relations shills that they already are.
Really, should the dream of the newspaper owners come to fruition, things won’t be all that different from now. Their coverage will still parrot the every whim of the White House. They will still offer coverage that embellishes but one side of an issue, and either utterly ignores or totally denigrates the other. Their readership will continue to fall, and their coffers will be as empty as a pauper’s pocket.
There would be one difference. At present, you can simply refuse to by a newspaper that you detest.
If the power brokers of journalism get their way, you’ll be ponying up cash every week.
------------------------------
Ron Marr is the editor/publisher/& janitor of Troutwrapper.com, an on-line, weekly newspaper dedicated to hunting down and publicly tormenting the humor impaired
Save them? Yes! In the coming depression, we are all going to need a cheap source of asswipe paper.
I have save all newspapers that chronicle World events. I started with the Assination of Kennedy. Sadly I stopped when O was elected. I may start again with the 2010 Election.
Anyway, when I pull out newpapers from previous years the decline in the today’s reporting abilities is shockingly evident.
Why is it that I like Canadian and British papers so much more?
They do not engage in the habit of studiously insulting the readers’ collective intelligence.
Who is even surprised that such an idea would be floated?
In the era of Obama, it’s not “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”, but more like “Everybody, get some (of other peoples money, money we print, money we mortgage our children and grandchildren’s future with, etc.)!”
Depending, of course, on which party is in the WH.
It has nothing to do with the internet; the magazine tried to become hip and in the process it became unreadable.
There would be one difference. At present, you can simply refuse to by a newspaper that you detest.
If the power brokers of journalism get their way, you’ll be ponying up cash every week.
Try this sh*t and watch what happens to every newspaper vending machine. A single pack of matches can do wonders on a stack of newspaper. Add an excellerant and you have a 4th of July celebration of free speech. Think I am over reacting, remember thoses cities that thought they could raise the cost of parking meters? Gee, how many parking meters went missing? Its an expensive undertaking to steal from everyone - it takes a village idiot to try.
Can’t use newspapers for that, the ink comes off.
Who’s gonna notice?
The correct response to that is that “it makes your ass black”.
J School Profs need to watch “The Obsolete Man”.
Assuming that there will ever be a different one.
True.
Anything I might be disposed to say to that will get me banned.
You are too timid. This isn’t a black/white thing. It is a comment about worthlessness of newspapers. THe fact that the ink is blak is irrelevant. The “I’m offended because what you said is a racial slur” thing doesn’t/won’t work with me and many others anymore.
Well the only thing media knows is to “speak out”. They don’t understand business, or how business works, or how to make anything profitable, so they “speak out” for a life preserver. Keep hollering Ole Yeller, we can’t hear ya! Get
off your cushy butt and work for a living.......
Asking the Taxpayers for a bailout?
The Taxpayers say no. And newspapers can have a nice day.
It’s funny that during a time of economic crisis the newspapers are demanding tax cuts. They’re demanded tax HIKES for the rest of us.
Hear-hear, DG!!
"Get off your cushy butt and work for a living..."
Given the rags are almost universally going belly-up & at warp speed? Kinda tough on that ilk, don'tcha think? LOL!!
I was actually thinking along somewhat different lines, having more to do with certain anatomical displays.
But I didn't say it!
Btw, before upbraiding somebody about timidity, consider if he might be old enough to remember Jimmy "the Greek".
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.