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.
Before I started bypassing the New York Times' paywall, I actually tried to subscribe to the online version plus the Sunday print edition. I knew I could continue to get the content for free, but I wanted to support the Times, AS LONG AS I just had the small added incentive of the print paper. Thought it would be fun to peruse the ads, do the paper and pencil crossword, etc. They billed my credit card, but after 4 weeks when I had yet to receive single Sunday paper, I cancelled. And they put me through hell getting the credit back onto my card. I finally had to dispute the charge. So it looks like the Times is doing their part to ensure their own demise, too.
Yes, a lot of small newspapers in rural areas and small cities and even neighborhood newspapers are holding their own in the new media market economy. I think the American public is tired of the propaganda and drivel being delivered by the large newspapers which are now largely very biased against anyone that does not possess their own personal editorial views.
Don't allow your memory to be so short. Biased reporting is nothing new, and if anything is less blatant than what has existed in the past. Historically speaking, newspapers were often founded on supporting certain political views or agendas. When cities had two or three or even more newspapers, competition for subscribers bred ever more sensational stories. Look no further than William Randolph Hearst who famously said to his correspondents in Cuba in 1899, "you supply the pictures, I'll supply the war!" Or Pulitzer and the no holds barred yellow journalism era of the 1920s.
Things did eventually clean up some. By the 1930s our own Times Star newspaper was housed in a building featuring carved figures representing Truth, Patriotism, Progress and Speed (these are the figures on the four corners of the tower at 800 Broadway). But let's face it, the bias never left newspaper business, and if you think today is somehow different, you just don't know your history.
Don't allow your memory to be so short. Biased reporting is nothing new, and if anything is less blatant than what has existed in the past. Historically speaking, newspapers were often founded on supporting certain political views or agendas. When cities had two or three or even more newspapers, competition for subscribers bred ever more sensational stories. Look no further than William Randolph Hearst who famously said to his correspondents in Cuba in 1899, "you supply the pictures, I'll supply the war!" Or Pulitzer and the no holds barred yellow journalism era of the 1920s.
Things did eventually clean up some. By the 1930s our own Times Star newspaper was housed in a building featuring carved figures representing Truth, Patriotism, Progress and Speed (these are the figures on the four corners of the tower at 800 Broadway). But let's face it, the bias never left newspaper business, and if you think today is somehow different, you just don't know your history.
Did I even imply in my post that bias reporting did not exist in the past? Certainly not. I simply said, and this is fact, that people are fed up with it now and no longer want to support these rags.
As recent as the mid 1990's you could still find some fairly honest reporting in the main stream newsprint media. When Clinton was facing Impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the main stream media actually reported in a fairly unbiased manner the proceedings as they happened.
And now in 2012? Were you aware that Walter Jones, a NC Representative is bringing up an Impeachment charge against the current President? And there is also apparently a Senate Bill that mirrors this Bill.
Yesterday Rep. Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina warns of Impeachment! | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012 (http://www.dailypaul.com/219402/yesterday-rep-walter-jones-republican-of-north-carolina-warns-of-impeachment - broken link)
I've yet to see any other main stream media outlet other than Fox including newspapers even bother to cover this story. That is enough proof right there that the bias in today's newsprint media and other forms of media has reached a new low.
Did I even imply in my post that bias reporting did not exist in the past? Certainly not. I simply said, and this is fact, that people are fed up with it now and no longer want to support these rags.
As recent as the mid 1990's you could still find some fairly honest reporting in the main stream newsprint media. When Clinton was facing Impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the main stream media actually reported in a fairly unbiased manner the proceedings as they happened.
And now in 2012? Were you aware that Walter Jones, a NC Representative is bringing up an Impeachment charge against the current President? And there is also apparently a Senate Bill that mirrors this Bill.
Yesterday Rep. Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina warns of Impeachment! | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012 (http://www.dailypaul.com/219402/yesterday-rep-walter-jones-republican-of-north-carolina-warns-of-impeachment - broken link)
I've yet to see any other main stream media outlet other than Fox including newspapers even bother to cover this story. That is enough proof right there that the bias in today's newsprint media and other forms of media has reached a new low.
I cannot fathom how either of the above would be reported on by any responsible journalistic media, since both are a product of completely biased and prejudicial origins. To accuse Obama of violating his powers by authorizing the use of force in Libya - what a crock of shi*t. How do you think we got into the situation we are in Afghanistan and Iraq, by congressional decree and public consensus? I believe the guy in charge then had the last name of Bush.
My current approach is I do read what FOX News has to offer. After reading, I take about 95% of it and relegate to the Recycle Bin since it is not worthy of another view.
As one of our newest participants from the UK, DP (look up his long form) has to say, if Rupert Murdock (major stockholder in FOX News) is involved, it has to be corrupt, since he is a lying, verminous, egotistical parasite. For some reason, the good people of the UK have recognized this, but we have not.
Did I even imply in my post that bias reporting did not exist in the past? Certainly not. I simply said, and this is fact, that people are fed up with it now and no longer want to support these rags.
Um, I guess when I read your words, "...newspapers, which are NOW largely very biased...," it certainly did imply to me that you sensed that there was something different in today's media.
As far as whether or not they are biased, I absolutely agree that they are. But, in our history, it has been much worse.
I also believe there is selective reporting that goes on and an "elite media" that pushes an agenda, but again it's nothing new. If anything, though, it's far harder today than it was 80 years ago for the press to guide thought in our society. In 1910, there were no other sources to verify the truth behind anything that appeared in a newspaper. Today, they don't have that level of control. In one camp you have people who pay no attention whatsoever to the news media (the ignorant masses), in another you have the internet where people can find verification of just about anything they want to believe, and then you have the rest of us who look at the news objectively and recognize that there is BS on every side of an issue and that the truth likely lies somewhere in between.
What I find ironic, is that the Enquirer (to bring this back to Cincinnati News) can be accused of being both a pinko commie rag, and a republican stooge all in the same day. It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
What I find ironic, is that the Enquirer (to bring this back to Cincinnati News) can be accused of being both a pinko commie rag, and a republican stooge all in the same day. It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Indeed. To my mind, the most important function of a local paper nowadays is accurate reporting of LOCAL news and issues. It's something every community in the country absolutely needs. Based repeatedly on stories I've happened to have personal knowledge of, the Enquirer does an abysmal job of getting the facts at all, and what ones they do get are all too frequently inaccurate. I now read their stories through the mental filter that I'm getting only a general idea of what's happening.
The internet has more coverage of national stories any single person can even think about absorbing. But I wish some new local news organization would start up with decent reporting. I'd certainly pay to read it, either online or in print. Possibly a good business model for one of the TV stations, since they're already doing a bit of that sort of thing--although their whole style is geared mostly toward visuals and the quick summaries that are appropriate to broadcasting.
I cannot fathom how either of the above would be reported on by any responsible journalistic media, since both are a product of completely biased and prejudicial origins. To accuse Obama of violating his powers by authorizing the use of force in Libya - what a crock of shi*t. How do you think we got into the situation we are in Afghanistan and Iraq, by congressional decree and public consensus? I believe the guy in charge then had the last name of Bush.
My current approach is I do read what FOX News has to offer. After reading, I take about 95% of it and relegate to the Recycle Bin since it is not worthy of another view.
As one of our newest participants from the UK, DP (look up his long form) has to say, if Rupert Murdock (major stockholder in FOX News) is involved, it has to be corrupt, since he is a lying, verminous, egotistical parasite. For some reason, the good people of the UK have recognized this, but we have not.
Since there are House and Senate Bills attached to this story, it is legitimate reporting. Personally I have no use for Fox either or for that matter any other main stream media outlet these days.
A President MUST go to Congress to receive Congressional approval to start a war. War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia At least Bush (whom I did not vote for either) went to Congress before invading Iraq.
But this reinforces my point about how the media has become so biased that American's don't way to pay good money to read or watch this pablum puke anymore. This is why the alternative media is growing in this country while readership and viewership etc. of most main stream outlets is declining.
Um, I guess when I read your words, "...newspapers, which are NOW largely very biased...," it certainly did imply to me that you sensed that there was something different in today's media.
As far as whether or not they are biased, I absolutely agree that they are. But, in our history, it has been much worse.
I also believe there is selective reporting that goes on and an "elite media" that pushes an agenda, but again it's nothing new. If anything, though, it's far harder today than it was 80 years ago for the press to guide thought in our society. In 1910, there were no other sources to verify the truth behind anything that appeared in a newspaper. Today, they don't have that level of control. In one camp you have people who pay no attention whatsoever to the news media (the ignorant masses), in another you have the internet where people can find verification of just about anything they want to believe, and then you have the rest of us who look at the news objectively and recognize that there is BS on every side of an issue and that the truth likely lies somewhere in between.
What I find ironic, is that the Enquirer (to bring this back to Cincinnati News) can be accused of being both a pinko commie rag, and a republican stooge all in the same day. It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
We're in agreement on this. And this is the reason why people are turning away from the main stream media for news.
I tried to read the Tallahassee newspaper about the Bearcats victory and low and behold. They have already started the subscription fee there. The same company that owns the Enquirer.
I tried to read the Tallahassee newspaper about the Bearcats victory and low and behold. They have already started the subscription fee there. The same company that owns the Enquirer.
Not even a specific number of free reads per month. Hmph.
Quote:
$9.95 a month kinda steep.
I'll say.
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.
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.
