i heard that... late night out, early morning up, bad as a banana peel
Posted on 09/05/2010 8:07:09 AM PDT by abb
Imagine the MSM doing that to a photo of Michelle Obama?/s
The use pof the term "Jacuzzi" marks this as an older demographic; "whirlpool" is the term for the 40 and under set.
Just wondering, it is hateful to wipe the mud off of your boots and then just leave the USAT in the hall? If so, I will consider myself chastised.
Great news to start a Sunday off. They can’t die fast enough.
True, but at this point “elctronics wiped out, and presto, no media” would include paper newspapers. Newsprint starts off electronically today.
“Grampa Dave has been doing this for years. He says the satisfaction from doing it is worth way more than the $0.75.”
In a couple of weeks my wife and I will be celebrating our anniversary at a nice lodge by the ocean. We were there this spring for her birthday.
When I made reservations, I sent an email re comments and personal notes to the lodge, that we didn’t want the USA and deduct from our bill the cost.
I got a reply that I was on their computer with that request, and they would deduct a $ from our bill each day.
A Scot American couldn’t ask for more: A $ back per night for us. Saving trees and carbon re no newspaper/ink and helping to weaken and hopefully drive into bankruptcy, an enemy of America.
I have been pushing for a tax on fishwraps for a long time.
Publishing a fishwrap, delivering it and hauling it away has to be one of the largest use/waste of energy in the world.
i heard that... late night out, early morning up, bad as a banana peel
The purpose of a news organ isn't to debate. It's to inform. The debate can take place in some other forum.
In my considered opinion, the reason conservative political theory has not transcended is that the means of communication has been corrupted and owned by the other side for many decades.
Absolutely correct. So conservatives sought -- and won -- other venues to disseminate their ideology, much to the dismay and detriment of the old-line media who are only now coming to grasp the slow erosion of their influence.
But as they do, they will use their power, their influence, and their reputations (such as they are) to muscle their way into the "new media." We need to be prepared for the next front in the war, and this is it.
I was in a Marriott last week and noted the non-delivery. It seemed odd, but at least they had a stack of WSJs in the lobby.
Guess I'm the exception. I travel frequently, and with a laptop, and sometimes read FR on my cellphone, but I still prefer a paper WSJ.
Most of the time they're just bragging. I'll hang the towel up and when I return to the room later it's been replaced.
But I bet you can't remember the last time you picked up a USA Today. I can't. Everything they print was available on the interweb thingy 12-24 hours earlier.
Actually it was not all that long ago. I would look at the TV guide in back to see what was on Discovery and the History Channel that evening, if I had any free time. But it’s been a while since even those channels carried anything interesting so I don’t bother anymore.
Words mean things - but what does the word "journalist" actually mean?Literally, "jour" means "day" - and a journalist meets a daily deadline (or shorter, in the case of "breaking news"). From that perspective, it used to bother me when Rush would say, "I am not a journalist." But on further consideration, I have decided that we are better off recognizing the inherent negatives of journalism:
- The deadline which defines journalism ineluctably produces superficiality. "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper."
- News inherently emphasizes the negative. "No news is good news" - because generally, good news "isn't news." If it's bad news when a house burns down, it must be good news when a house gets built - but whereas the destructive fire is a sudden surprise, the construction of the house is a gradual process which, as Abraham Lincoln suggested with his "framing timbers" allusion, should surprise no one. And therefore isn't news (actually, it probably will make the newspaper - in the form of a paid advertisement seeking a buyer for the house).
- News is inherently unrepresentative. "Man Bites Dog" is the headline the editor wants to print, and "Dog Bites Man" - i.e., whatever is usual - makes page 13 below the fold in the unlikely event that it's in the paper at all.
- Journalism as we know it is extremely biased. Here you would probably expect to hear a litany of examples, but instead I simply refer to the fact that every journalist promotes the conceit that all journalists are objective -and that belief in his own objectivity is the defining characteristic of the man who is not objective.
So I say, accept the fact that "these people" are indeed journalists, doing exactly what journalists do - which is, and ought to be seen as, disreputable.You will say, "but what about the First Amendment and freedom of the press?" To which I reply that freedom of the press is a wonderful idea, and we ought to try it. Journalism presumes to call itself "the press," as if it were a class separate from we-the-people. But in fact, under the Constitution there are only three subdivisions - the federal government, the state governments, and the people. People who don't own a press aren't a separate species from those who do - they simply are people who don't own a press yet. More than anything, the First Amendment reference to freedom of "the press" is supposed to mean that anyone who decides to spend the money for a press (and ink and paper) is allowed to do so.
Those who style themselves "the press" actually depend for their self-definiton on the scarcity and expense of presses, not the "freedom" thereof. If every Tom, Dick, and Harriet had a press, journalists calling themselves "the press" would be no big deal. And that is actually now the case. To all intents and purposes, FreeRepublic.com is a press, and you are able to read this posting (so be that JimRob and his moderators don't object) anywhere in the world.
But is FreeRepublic.com actually a "press" under the intent of the First Amendment, which was written long before the telegraph - let alone the Internet? Absolutely. First, because "the progress of science and useful arts" was contemplated by the framers of the Constitution:
Article 1 Section 8.Under what logical framework is progress in the technology of communication excluded from the Constitution? If the Ninth Amendment means anything at all
The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .Amendment 9the First Amendment is a floor rather than a ceiling on our rights - and freedom of "the press" does not mean censorship of other, later, communication technologies. Else, can the newswires be censored because the telegraph isn't a printing press?The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Journalism and Objectivity
BTTT
People and businesses are looking for any ways to cut back and save money now.
That means not hiring any new workers, not rehiring when somebody leaves or quits or retires or cutting back on expenses and frivolities and extraneous expenditures.
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.