Bad Idea

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by wjk, Jan 1, 2009.

  1. wjk

    wjk

    "Government aid could save U.S. newspapers, spark debate"

    from:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSTRE4BU53T20081231?sp=true


    Not that there isn't already an over-abundance of bias, but this would only magnify media bias. One step closer to gov controlled media. Add that to all the newly nationalized entities. Maybe nationalize is not the correct term. Let's just say...gov gaining much greater influence through the bailouts of banks and other industries by not letting the losers fail. And certainly more to come as more line up. Who's next? Step right up.

    I always wondered how fast we could become a socialist country. Didn't take long, did it? Even though we've been on the path for decades, mostly less than a year.
     
  2. hughb

    hughb

    I like print newspapers. I subscribe to the print WSJ, and print Barron's. If I had time to read two papers a day, I would also subscribe to the USA Today. The USA Today and the WSJ are not in danger of folding, but I don't know about Barron's. I wonder if they are doing OK. I still see a lot of ads in Barron's, but I'm sure they don't get the same price they used to.

    The internet has for sure played a role in the demise of newspapers, but it isn't the only factor. Local and regional papers have a history of putting their political and social bias into their reporting. The LA Times was blatantly pro-Davis and blatantly anti-Schwarzenegger during California's recall election. The San Diego Union Tribune is so anti-white racist that it's disgusting. A couple of years ago there was a horrible home invasion rape/robbery here. The suspects were black, but the U/T refused to print that fact. When they were called on it in letters to the editor, they defended themselves saying that they don't provide race in a story like that unless they have a certain number of other criteria for the description of the suspects. Well, it turns out that the paper was given very full descriptions by the police department themselves, and they had the criteria, they just ommited the race of the suspects for whatever reason, most likely the constraints of political correctness. Also, the U/T ran a story a few years ago about teens running around beating homeless people at night. The story specifically said that the crimes were commited mostly by white teenage males, again violating their own standards on race reporting. Back in the 90's the paper was running several anti-police stories. Oddly, when San Diego got a new police chief who was Hispanic, the paper all of a sudden became pro-police, even running a story about how the new police chief was cleaning up San Diego, complete with a pic of him with his arms crossed pushing out his biceps for size.

    Even though I like newspapers in general, I will be happy to see the San Diego U/T go and the LA Times as well. These two are horrible offenders of journalistic fairness.

    I've been keeping a file on the demise of traditional media, not just newspapers. I print stories like the one in this thread and I clip other stories I find in print media. It seems like every day I'm adding a page or two to the file. It's not just newspapers who are getting killed, CNN ran a story some time back titled, "Where Have All the Viewers Gone" about television losing it's audience. Personally, I don't think TV will be killed by the internet, they will find a way to get viewers back. But local newspapers will become a thing of the past here in America. National papers will continue, but their best days are behind them too.
     
  3. hughb

    hughb

    One other thing. From the link above is this quote:

    Absolutley not, Mr. Fiedler! You have an obligation to run a paper with high standards of journalistic fairness and keep your paper profitable in the marketplace. It isn't up to the government, or "democracy" as you put it, to keep you in business.
     
  4. wjk

    wjk

    Hughb, you nailed what I hate most about MSM, both print and audio/visual. It's not the spin they place on stories. That can imply bias, but the news is still there. It's the omission of facts that really bias the news and create misconceptions.

    I don't believe the MSM can keep the gov honest in it's current form. I believe it is this bias that is contributing to the decline, along with internet competition. I would be interested in knowing if some of the more biased news outlets are losing internet readership as well. Have you researched that?

    I rely solely on internet sights, both left and right, and try and find something in between. I don't consider talk radio to be news, but opinion of news. Unfortunately, many of our MSM can almost be classified as the same. On the internet, it doesn't take long to find out which news outlets are biased, and which aren't. The nice thing is one has the choice, at least those news consumers that are wired to the net.

    I cringe when the question "why do you want be a journalist?" is answered with "to change the world". If that is a journalist's answer, my question to him or her is "have you ever considered politics?".
     
  5. Bye bye liberal rags. That would be my wish for '09.

    Democrats will be bringing back the Fairness Doctrine to shut down conservative talk radio while they are supporting liberal rags "to save democracy". They have redefined democracy to mean "economic equality" btw...
     
  6. isn't this what got Blago in trouble?

    "give me better press or you won't get your funding"?


    meet me in Montana, bring guns...