U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-07-2019, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
6,845 posts, read 2,396,819 times
Reputation: 10639

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
Yes, but that would require imagination, something that's in short supply at Newhouse. Their online component is dreadful and hasn't changed appreciably in 15 years.
Maybe ownership of media carries with it a certain degree of public stewardship. There have been many, many media owners who carefully nurtured and supported outlets with viewpoints and political bents contrary to their own. It's only in recent years that the the Murdoch effect has come to rule.

There have always been papers that were megaphones for their owners - Hearst, McCormick - but they were always seen in a polarized, ostracized way amid the greater practice of journalism.

But now it's about the bottom line and investment company ownership. Or simple, brainless neglect. News is just another commodity to be processed and sold to the highest bidder.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-07-2019, 12:43 PM
 
51,091 posts, read 41,249,066 times
Reputation: 31951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Not new/s. One paper after another has been bought by non-journalism owners and turned into a pathetic shadow of itself. Here in Denver, the Post, once one of the great midwestern pillars of journalism, was bought by an investment firm and has been turned into little more than a lightly-staffed blog that still prints a few copies.

Political bent is not the issue with newspapers... the gutting and burning of them for short-term investor profits is.
ALL print media is struggling. Just today I saw that ESPN magazine is now going "part time".

This is due to the internet choking all the profits out of them for years and thus the dire financial condition they find themselves in.

Also, I do see that the Denver Post was acquired via bankruptcy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2019, 12:50 PM
 
51,091 posts, read 41,249,066 times
Reputation: 31951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Maybe ownership of media carries with it a certain degree of public stewardship. There have been many, many media owners who carefully nurtured and supported outlets with viewpoints and political bents contrary to their own. It's only in recent years that the the Murdoch effect has come to rule.

There have always been papers that were megaphones for their owners - Hearst, McCormick - but they were always seen in a polarized, ostracized way amid the greater practice of journalism.

But now it's about the bottom line and investment company ownership. Or simple, brainless neglect. News is just another commodity to be processed and sold to the highest bidder.
Reminds me of the old song "Video killed the radio star", or when "Talkies killed silent film stars".

The internet killed journalism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2019, 12:54 PM
 
7,072 posts, read 9,240,606 times
Reputation: 8097
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
In truth, reading a newspaper is actually better. Read your news digitally and you get what the algorithms think you should get. Read a newspaper, and you're actually forced to peruse the stories, thereby reading about things that you normally wouldn't. This is why, by the way, I think people are so politically polarized nowadays. They get their news spoon-fed to them based on what they previously read, in effect creating an echo chamber for their own political viewpoints.
There's that, AND the fact that you are less able to remember what you see on a screen. For some reason reading something in print format makes the information register better on your brain.


Of course, if you're just reading echo-chamber materials that feed your own biases and never challenge you to think about anything different, you might as well forget every scrap of it anyway.


About 25 years ago now, one of the Detroit papers -- can't remember whether it was the News or the Free Press -- fired its entire staff because they were striking for better pay. This was before the entire print-news industry started crumpling in the heat of the Internet. It was a real shocker at the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2019, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
6,845 posts, read 2,396,819 times
Reputation: 10639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Reminds me of the old song "Video killed the radio star", or when "Talkies killed silent film stars".

The internet killed journalism.
I can't remember offhand who described the failure of television as "Imagine that Gutenberg's invention had never been used for anything except comic books."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2019, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
8,901 posts, read 8,083,297 times
Reputation: 19256
People still read newspapers? I don't even read the free USA Today I get in the hotels I stay in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2019, 02:34 PM
 
677 posts, read 410,618 times
Reputation: 609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo View Post
It's getting to the point where we'll have major cities in this country where there won't be a single reporter covering city council and local courts as a beat. And having government that operates in a vacuum is bad for the people who live in those cities. Voters there won't be able to make informed decisions at election time. They'll just have to rely on campaign ads.

Just because the ad market dried up doesn't mean the need for journalism dried up.

Great post and so, so true!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2019, 02:57 PM
 
5,163 posts, read 2,132,068 times
Reputation: 15667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Maybe ownership of media carries with it a certain degree of public stewardship. There have been many, many media owners who carefully nurtured and supported outlets with viewpoints and political bents contrary to their own. It's only in recent years that the the Murdoch effect has come to rule.

There have always been papers that were megaphones for their owners - Hearst, McCormick - but they were always seen in a polarized, ostracized way amid the greater practice of journalism.

But now it's about the bottom line and investment company ownership. Or simple, brainless neglect. News is just another commodity to be processed and sold to the highest bidder.

You act as if partisanship in the press is some kind of new development. An objective press has never existed, even in the formative days of Addison and Steele.



The Tatler presented Whiggish views so that those of weak intellects would know what to think. Newspapers have always been famously biased, up to and including the yellow journalism of the late 19th Century and even today.



Hell, the New York Times has a very defined slant on just about everything they print, marshaling some facts and ignoring others simply to make a case. Here's just an example: https://www.realclearinvestigations....tes_funny.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2019, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
6,845 posts, read 2,396,819 times
Reputation: 10639
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
You act as if partisanship in the press is some kind of new development.
Hardly. I'm quite familiar with the history of journalism, yellow era and all.

This isn't about partisanship. It's about fewer and fewer more-or-less third-party observers watching. And the ones who are left are reliant on a few, easily controlled/influenced avenues of information.

Most journalists I've known had Bosch's "Get off your ass and knock on doors" maxim tattooed on their eyelids. But now "news" is what some blog writers find on other sources' postings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2019, 05:33 PM
 
6,547 posts, read 3,695,164 times
Reputation: 13993
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
You may disagree, but I doubt that there was ever a time in American history that the press was respectful and unbiased journalism.

Worse, they've been minions of the propaganda ministry for centuries.

Easy to prove. Ask ten Americans:
1) What's the difference between a dollar bill (federal reserve note) and a dollar (silver coin, stamped pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1792)?
2) When the Emergency was declared in 1933, what was the cause?
3) What's the difference between a democracy, a republic and a republican form of government?
4) What's the difference between an inhabitant with a domicile, versus a resident residing at a residence?
5) What law compels participation in Social Security / FICA?
- - - -

1) One's a worthless IOU and the other is worth $1. (See Coinage Act of 1792, et seq)
2) U.S. went bankrupt, repudiated redeeming their notes with lawful money (HJR 192, June 1933; Gold Reserve Act of 1934)
3) In a democracy, a majority can legally persecute a minority. In a republic, all citizens can participate in government. In a republican form, all people have inherent rights that government was instituted to secure, and can only govern by consent of the governed.
4) A domicile is a permanent, legal home. A residence is less than a domicile.
5) No law compels participation, lest it violate the 13th amendment. It's 100% voluntary.


In all my years, I have never, ever seen one newspaper report address these points of fact and law.
What you are writing about is history; newspapers address topics that are, well, new. What you believe is an indictment of the print media falls completely short.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top