The Portland Perspective: Richmond, Virginia? Another hipster-oriented city? (move to, trendy)

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Minervah

Yeah but you keep referring to it as if it were the bible. You can't have it both ways.

I am not referring to it as a bible, but I understand the importance the Times has for lots of its readers.

[VTHokieFan]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

I am not referring to it as a bible, but I understand the importance the Times has for lots of its readers.

Print newspapers are so hot right now. So are rotary phones

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by VTHokieFan

Print newspapers are so hot right now. So are rotary phones

Well, the NY Times isn't your average little regional newspaper.....but you already knew that.

[jjpop]

NYT certainly isn't irrelevant, but their continued fascination with Portland is bewildering. It's like they really think we have something exotic out here.

[Minervah]

Originally Posted by jjpop

NYT certainly isn't irrelevant, but their continued fascination with Portland is bewildering. It's like they really think we have something exotic out here.

Until they get tired of it and latch onto "the next best thing."

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Minervah

Until they get tired of it and latch onto "the next best thing."

I have been hearing that for a long time now, but it seems for the past 10 years or so, they have had this continued lovefest for Portland with no end in sight. Though for me, the NYT isn't the reason why I would pick Portland over Richmond any day of the week.

[FSF]

The New York Times is one of only 4 newspapers in this country that is circulated nationwide. The other three consist of The Wall Street Journal (which is terrific but predominantly business oriented), The USA Today (which is pretty much a Newspaper Digest or even a "Newspaper for Dummies" even though I like it) and The Washington Post. So effectively, it is one of only two serious traditional newspapers circulated nationwide.

It has a circulation 3 times as large as The Washington Post, 3 times The LA Times, 4 times The Chicago Sun Times. In other words, it IS the most important newspaper in this country and arguably worldwide. Like it or not, anyone who doesn't understand this just isn't getting it. It is a paper that is frequently quoted and referred to regarding important news events. It is the ONE paper than any writer would want to have for a favorable review. It is BY FAR more relevant than any other newspaper in the country.

[VTHokieFan]

I like Richmond because it's a much more environmentally conscious city than Portland. With traffic on par with DC, I don't think Portland has much room to boast about being green.

[Minervah]

Originally Posted by FSF

The New York Times is one of only 4 newspapers in this country that is circulated nationwide. The other three consist of The Wall Street Journal (which is terrific but predominantly business oriented), The USA Today (which is pretty much a Newspaper Digest or even a "Newspaper for Dummies" even though I like it) and The Washington Post. So effectively, it is one of only two serious traditional newspapers circulated nationwide.

It has a circulation 3 times as large as The Washington Post, 3 times The LA Times, 4 times The Chicago Sun Times. In other words, it IS the most important newspaper in this country and arguably worldwide. Like it or not, anyone who doesn't understand this just isn't getting it. It is a paper that is frequently quoted and referred to regarding important news events. It is the ONE paper than any writer would want to have for a favorable review. It is BY FAR more relevant than any other newspaper in the country.

When they are writing about politics and news events I would agree. That is when they are doing what newspapers do; reporting.

But the puff pieces like adorations with cities or whatever they happen to choose for who knows what reasons are just silly to me. And there will always be the snobby sheeple readers who will say it has to be true without question for the sole reason that they read it in the NYT's.

But getting back on topic. I have been to Richmond and was impressed. I am not a fan of hot weather, I happen to like colder climates but other than that, Richmond is a city in which I could easily live. Now that I live closer, I can visit a friend who lives not far from there and intend to do so more often. I don't care if a newspaper has written more about Portland than Richmond that has nothing to do with my impressions of either of the two cities.

[FSF]

Originally Posted by Minervah

When they are writing about politics and news events I would agree. That is when they are doing what newspapers do; reporting.

But the puff pieces like adorations with cities or whatever they happen to choose for who knows what reasons are just silly to me. And there will always be the snobby sheeple readers who will say it has to be true without question for the sole reason that they read it in the NYT's.

But getting back on topic. I have been to Richmond and was impressed. I am not a fan of hot weather, I happen to like colder climates but other than that, Richmond is a city in which I could easily live. Now that I live closer, I can visit a friend who lives not far from there and intend to do so more often. I don't care if a newspaper has written more about Portland than Richmond that has nothing to do with my impressions of either of the two cities.

So many of your posts are all about 'I'. That's fine that YOU feel that way. But plenty of others may not. Tons of people read the New York Times precisely for what you refer to as "puff pieces". They're VERY influential where arts, leisure, travel, lifestyle, etc. are concerned. That YOU find is "silly" doesn't mean that others do, and they don't have to be "snobby sheeple" to feel that way. In fact, they probably appreciate the quality of writing and the much more reliable reputation and standards that are usually employed. Quite frankly, you probably haven't read much of The New York Times so your opinion is rather nonsensical as you are just basing your views from entirely negative bias.

And your opinions concerning Richmond are entirely hypocritical to your repeated comments about how one cannot really know a city unless they have spent a ton of time there (which you beat to death) and you're acting like your opinion on your limited/one??? visit to Richmond should actually count for anything.

I'd MUCH rather read The NYT and their opinion of Portland or Richmond than listen to some random person's opinion on the internet for a whole host of reasons. Starting with the fact that those writers have a much broader basis of comparison and experience in these matters than you.