U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
View Poll Results: Which newspaper do you buy, if any?
New York Times 0 0%
Los Angeles Times 2 4.35%
Wall Street Journal 1 2.17%
Washington Post 3 6.52%
USA Today 1 2.17%
Chicago Sun-Times 1 2.17%
The Denver Post 0 0%
Miami Herald 0 0%
Other (mention in comments) 22 47.83%
I don't buy a paper 16 34.78%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-09-2014, 09:46 AM
 
12,698 posts, read 10,514,849 times
Reputation: 17602

Advertisements

We get New Jersey's state paper (or at least one of them, not sure if there are more) the Star-Ledger delivered to our house but are considering ending the subscription. Not only do we disagree with the paper's rather strong political bias, but since we can read it online why not just do that? But as of now, we still get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-09-2014, 09:55 AM
 
Location: Milwaukee
3,451 posts, read 3,399,877 times
Reputation: 2896
It seems pointless to pay for a newspaper by now, but I enjoy reading them if I have a laid-back morning or whatever.

For whatever reason, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal Sunday edition has the highest readership penetration among the top 50 media markets in the nation; the daily Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ranks second in market penetration among the top 50 media markets in the nation. I am unsure of why this would be, as I don't believe it to be ahead of its market in terms of quality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Center City
6,859 posts, read 7,806,872 times
Reputation: 9487
I will soon be 59 years old. I began reading the daily paper as an adolescent growing up in a small town located two hours from any large city. I credit that practice with making me an (arguably) better informed citizen than others my age along with (again, arguably) instilling in me a greater knowledge of and curiosity in the world around me that persists to this day. I have continued reading a daily paper in the cities I've lived in since leaving home: the Boston Globe, the Kansas City Star, the Houston Chronicle and now the Philadelphia Inquirer. With the proliferation of 24 hour news channels and internet sources, the paper is not my only source of news, but it remains a valuable tool for calibrating how world and local events are seen through a local lens. Unlike the OP, I see no reason to purposely choose to ignore what remains an important source of news that informs fellow citizens in his or her community, especially when s/he seems to be trying to convey her or his passion for being plugged into the world around them.

Now to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by phenomenon View Post
This contrasts to physical newspapers, where columnists pontificate from their pedestal to us lowly mortals. Who decided to give these guys a soapbox and why should their opinion be more valuable then the ordinary man's?
As to the first sentence, every "news source" from Fox to MSNBC and from Red State to Daily Kos is also "guilty" of providing platforms from which others pontificate to us mere mortals. Should we likewise boycott them? As to the second sentence, personally, even though I might disagree with him, I place more credence in George Will's analyses than I might, say, some "ordinary man" who bloviates under the anonymous username "Stars and Bars Forever."

Finally, on a more prosaic matter, the selections in the poll strike me as rather random. Here is a list of the top 25 newspapers in the country ranked by circulation: List of newspapers in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The poll gives one the option of choosing among the papers ranked 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and, in the case of the Miami Herald, who knows what? If s/he were going to create such a grab bag list, it might have made more sense to list his or her local paper (he Arizona Republic), which at number 20, at least makes the list. Who know? Perhaps if the OP read the local paper, they might have known this. I've elected therefore to not participate in this flawed poll.

I assume the OP and I share a similar appetite for understanding what is going on in the world around us. Where we part ways is his or her cheerleading for the demise of what remains and can continue to be an important source of such information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
163 posts, read 196,597 times
Reputation: 386
Hi jm02,

Thanks for comment. However, I sense a condescending bitterness in your tone, but I'm not sure why. To address some of your points:

Quote:
the paper is not my only source of news, but it remains a valuable tool for calibrating how world and local events are seen through a local lens
I predict local community papers will survive. However, these type of papers rarely focus on grand international events, or even national ones. They serve a different purpose - they print pictures of the local school kids at the prom; they announce the community litter clean-up; they carry the obituaries for the neighbourhood. Frankly this type of fluff doesn't interest me. Most people buy their local paper as a supplement to a national one, not as a replacement.

Quote:
Every "news source" from Fox to MSNBC and from Red State to Daily Kos is also "guilty" of providing platforms from which others pontificate to us mere mortals. Should we likewise boycott them? As to the second sentence, personally, even though I might disagree with him, I place more credence in George Will's analyses than I might, say, some "ordinary man" who bloviates under the anonymous username "Stars and Bars Forever."
You're correct that American TV stations also host "commentators" to lecture us on their view of the latest story. I'm not advocating a boycott of them - I just personally don't pay any attention to them. In Europe, the news stations simply provide the facts - no commentary. This is the way it should be in my opinion. Hence the BBC remains one of my primary sources for news. The old "dinosaur" media is gradually going extinct while interactive internet media is on the rise. The public want to hear from each other, not from some self-appointed charlatan. Even the term "commentator" annoys me. We're all commentators on the internet! Perhaps city-data should be paying use for our views

Quote:
Finally, on a more prosaic matter, the selections in the poll strike me as rather random
Well, that's because they are random. There are hundreds of papers in circulation in America and obviously I can't include them all in my poll. I chose what I though were the top 8 off the top of my head. The Miami Herald is an outlier? My bad. I deliberately didn't chose the Arizona Republic as it doesn't have any national readership whereas the NY Times or WSJ do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
2,438 posts, read 4,226,586 times
Reputation: 2626
I subscribe to the Portland Oregonian which is published seven days a week but only four days are home-delivered. I tend to read it online all seven days anyway, which you can only do by subscribing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 07:48 PM
 
Location: Center City
6,859 posts, read 7,806,872 times
Reputation: 9487
Quote:
Originally Posted by phenomenon View Post
Hi jm02,

Thanks for comment. However, I sense a condescending bitterness in your tone, but I'm not sure why. To address some of your points:



I predict local community papers will survive. However, these type of papers rarely focus on grand international events, or even national ones. They serve a different purpose - they print pictures of the local school kids at the prom; they announce the community litter clean-up; they carry the obituaries for the neighbourhood. Frankly this type of fluff doesn't interest me.
Hi phenomenon - Not sure what condensation or bitterness(?) you picked up in my post either. Perhaps if you re-read it it might become clearer to you. Anyhow, I suspect your comments on "community papers" may be true. I was not referring to such publications however. My current local paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, did not receive 20 Pulitzer Prizes for covering proms. I believe there will always be value for reporting in local papers that rises to this level of quality. It's one of the reasons I still enjoy reading my local paper. One of my favorite columnists was just honored with a Pulitzer a few months back: Inquirer's Saffron, critic of the built environment, wins Pulitzer - Philly.com. Inga combines a keen eye for architectural criticism with a passionate advocacy for urban livability. Using the Inquirer as her platform, she has cultivated an audience and achieved influence here in Philadelphia that dwarves any she might have through other media. The Pulitzer only confers further imprimatur. So yes, I still see an important place in our era of infinite information for local newspapers (not to be confused with community newspapers).

As for this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by phenomenon View Post
Most people buy their local paper as a supplement to a national one, not as a replacement.
So you state. And perhaps you believe this. But I see this simple sentence as an opinion masquerading as truth. Where are your facts to back it up? As you yourself state: "We're all commentators on the internet!" It's one of my problems with confusing so much that is being posted on the internet as being in and of itself of any particular value. One need look no further than CD to see the bulk of what resides on the net is little more than chatter. Where you see a public clamoring to hear from each other, more often than not, I see folks who have found a virtual way to hear themselves "talk."

Just one more comment on something you raised:
Quote:
Originally Posted by phenomenon View Post
In Europe, the news stations simply provide the facts - no commentary. This is the way it should be in my opinion. Hence the BBC remains one of my primary sources for news.
Maybe. Maybe not. Even if true, who decides which "facts," of the countless number of events occurring in the world on any given day, make the cut for your consumption (which you accept as free of bias)? Who pays them? How does their pay and payer influence them? What makes them immune from applying their biases (known or unknown) when deciding what gets covered as "news" on any given day?

No further comments on your post. Regarding the newspaper choices you made in the poll, as you acknowledged, they are random. If that gets you the insights you are hoping to get from your poll, then great! Hope you enjoy your thread.

Cheers!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 08:04 PM
 
Location: Savannah GA
13,420 posts, read 16,970,511 times
Reputation: 9513
Quote:
Originally Posted by phenomenon View Post
It's no secret that newspaper circulation has been in decline for many years now since the proliferation of the internet. Newspapers are out of date by the time they come off the printing presses. I haven't bought a paper in about 5 years. Why would I when I can get more up-to-date news for free on the internet or rolling 24 hour news channels.

The public prefers interactive media, such as internet fora like citydata, where they can comment on the news stories and give their point of view. This contrasts to physical newspapers, where columnists pontificate from their pedestal to us lowly mortals. Who decided to give these guys a soapbox and why should their opinion be more valuable then the ordinary man's? In the past, papers were given too much power in deciding which stories to report and which to ignore. These days it's impossible to cover up stories when everybody has a camera phone and can report to the world via twitter. News reporting has become more open and egalitarian as a result. This is a good thing in my opinion.

So to ask the question for the poll: which paper do you buy and why (if any)?
On an interesting tangent, which major paper do you think will disappear next? I was browsing this intersting site which chronicles when papers close up.
Because you are not a journalist, you cannot possibly understand the fallacy in your statement. People tweeting on their cell phones is not news. People posting what they see to Facebook and blog sites is NOT journalism. Journalism requires ethics. Journalism requires standards. Journalism requires rules of law. Journalism requires an understanding of what is right vs what is wrong.

You can not possibly understand what "journalism" is, because to you "news" is just what you observe. But the news is much more than that. Journalism demands context, and depth, and analysis, and relevance.

Your attitude and opinion of what "news" is, is quite frankly destroying America. If every Tom, Dick and Harry is qualified to be a "journalist" just because they have eyes and a cell phone, where does that leave us? With nothing!

You're so wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 08:54 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
163 posts, read 196,597 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsboy View Post
Because you are not a journalist, you cannot possibly understand the fallacy in your statement. People tweeting on their cell phones is not news. People posting what they see to Facebook and blog sites is NOT journalism. Journalism requires ethics. Journalism requires standards. Journalism requires rules of law. Journalism requires an understanding of what is right vs what is wrong.

You can not possibly understand what "journalism" is, because to you "news" is just what you observe. But the news is much more than that. Journalism demands context, and depth, and analysis, and relevance.

Your attitude and opinion of what "news" is, is quite frankly destroying America. If every Tom, Dick and Harry is qualified to be a "journalist" just because they have eyes and a cell phone, where does that leave us? With nothing!

You're so wrong.
How patronising that only you know what real journalism is. I can only presume that you're a journalist who feels his job is being threatened by the rise in public-led reporting via twitter and Facebook. The numbers speak for themselves - newspaper circulation numbers are in terminal decline and advertising revenues are a fraction of what they used to be. I assume the generation gap has a role to play in this. Older people may be in the habit of reading their paper over breakfast and don't plan to break the habit any time soon, whereas the younger generation prefer to use the internet to follow breaking stories as it's free and more convenient.

During the worst days of the Syrian civil war when government forces were shelling Homs, no journalist could gain access to the country. We relied on ordinary Syrians to post pictures and videos online to show the world what exactly was happening there. Ditto with the 2009/2010 Green Revolution in Iran. The Iranian government tried to block certain websites but tech-savvy youngsters still managed to get their message out and organize protests over the staged elections. The Chinese government also tries to censor the web because they know the power it has. Governments can't control the narrative online.

The public can view these primary sources themselves and make up their own mind. We don't need "experts" to analyse the news for us and tell us what to think. I prefer the more open discussion platforms that internet message boards provide. To say this is "destroying America" is baseless hyperbole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 10:09 PM
 
Location: Cedar Rapids
233 posts, read 281,476 times
Reputation: 224
I do love newspapers, but I currently use Newspaper apps on my phone as they are updated throughout the day and I can scroll through news stories anytime.

Chicago Tribune (not Sun-Times)
and Cedar Rapids Gazette
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 10:17 PM
 
Location: NC
720 posts, read 1,485,694 times
Reputation: 1072
Waterbury CT Republican-American 7 days a week ,occasionally subscribe to The Post of Bridgeport CTand The New Haven Register of New Haven, CT, and currently subscribe to The State Port Part I lot of Southport,NC. When traveling, I always buy the local papers. Love reading newspapers.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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 > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
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 · Bug Bounty

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