Posted on 05/31/2003 11:11:56 PM PDT by LdSentinal
Everyone in Western CT - that is, the outer NYC suburbs - reads the Post, Times and Daily News like the rest of us, except they usually take their diddly local town paper too, most of which are owned by chains large or small, and suck in the same ways local papers do everywhere else, including having overwhelmingly liberal staffs and editorial pages. Generally they'll read the local paper on the train into the City, toss it in the giant recycling bins on each track inside Grand Central (a great place to get free papers, by the way!), and grab one or more of the NYC papers at a newsstand or have it waiting for them at work.
A lot of people buy the Post as a second paper in the afternoon to read on the train home. I always have thought that the stupidest move Murdoch ever made with the Post was taking it off a 24-hour production schedule. (It used to literally publish edition after edition all day and night, so whichever copy you bought had news never more than a few hours old.) At the very least, he ought to bring back an special afternoon edition to just sell around Grand Central, Penn Station, etc.
Van Atter packing OJ's blood all over the crime scene...
I am not sure I could have convicted him either.
Basically, the media has behaved much like the french, insulting their best customers and then wondering why their customers have looked elsewhere.
And the multiple Westchester editions of The Journal News, a typically sh---y Gannett rag.
qam1: Actually I used to like Newsday a long time ago (10 to 15 years ago). The Daily News you can read in about 5 mins and the Times was always the Liberal rag it still is today and back then the Post was the daily version of the National Enquirer. Newsday used to be the only paper that had any substance. Unfortunately they tried to break into the NYC market and for some reason they thought they had to go ultra left and they hired (stole) many of the most Liberal "Journalist" from the Daily News and other papers. It was a big failure of course and they had to reduce their ciculation back to just Long Island (and Queens). It was really funny because a lefty journalist goal of course to be in Manhattan and now all these elites were stuck in the middle of nowhere(to them)on Long Island. Apparently Newsday still hasn't changed and is a left as ever.
Ironically, New York Newsday was not a financial failure, at least not by the time it was closed down. It was merely "insufficently profitable" in the eyes of a new Times Mirrpr corporate executive from the slash-and-burn school of business administration. He closed it and fired thousands throughout the company purely to jack up the stock price (and it worked, too). Karma eventually got him back, though, as you can read about in this article. (Of course, he walked away with a multi-million-dollar severance.)
Anyway, as I remember it, Newsday - and New York Newsday - were both always liberal going back pretty much forever. They were, and are, the worst kind of liberals, too - suit-and-tie paleoliberals who spend their days solemnly navel-gazing about the fate of the Little People, those who would never in a million years actually pick up a copy of Newsday themselves unless they desperately needed a copy of the help wanted ads. In short, they're dull, dry as dirt. The editorials are dull. The news writing is dull. The newspaper's design is dull (not many tabloids intentionally try to look like compressed broadsheets, but Newsday does).
Basically, New York Newsday never became a big success for the same reasons liberal talk radio is unsuccessful: There's no call for a "serious liberal paper" in a city that already had two liberal papers (the Times and Daily News), where almost all the TV and radio stations are "mainstream" liberal, etc; and because they're liberal, they're simply not enjoyable. Reading Newsday always seems like a chore. The only reason they make money like crazy on Long Island is because they're a monopoly paper out there, and it's almost impossible for a newspaper in a monopoly market to not rake in the dough, regardless of how good or bad it is. (This is why Gannett can buy a local paper, fire 75% of the staff, reduce the newshole by more than half, and leave a crappy shell where the newspaper used to be, and double or triple the paper's profits even while pissing off 90% of its readership: because the readers have nowhere else to go.)
It does, the NYT mispelled it long ago Editorials and no one caught the error.
....heheh.....great zinger, bert......
The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg wrote a week after the Paper of Record published a 14,000-word exposé detailing Blair's history of barefaced lying. "It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the Times defines public reality." .......This will certainly come as news to the "public," 99% of which doesn't read the paper.
I, personally, would not mind if the Times reinvents itself....into a supermarket tabloid with obits, puzzles (they have great puzzles) and restaurant reviews. OK maybe a few comics, too....like Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, and The Dowder.......LOL.
One of the great fringe benefits of working in Grand Central Station. That and having the Oyster Bar in the basement (at least the chowder is affordable!).
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.