The Newspaper Slump: Blaming the Bloggers
Esteemed Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker points the finger.
Looking at the “overall” results above, seeing as television beats out newspapers, would Parker be willing to blame television for the downturn in newspaper revenue as well? Somehow I doubt it, especially seeing as since she turned thumbs down on Sarah Palin during the campaign last year, she’s been a sought-after “conservative voice” on the talking heads programs. Plus, she’s had it in for bloggers for some time now. Let’s travel back to 2005:
There’s something frankly creepy about the explosion we now call the blogosphere — the big-bang “electroniverse” where recently wired squatters set up new camps each day. As I write, the number of “blogs” (web logs) and “bloggers” (those who blog) is estimated in the tens of millions worldwide. …
Bloggers persist no matter their contributions or quality, though most would have little to occupy their time were the mainstream media to disappear tomorrow. Some bloggers do their own reporting, but most rely on mainstream reporters to do the heavy lifting. Some bloggers also offer superb commentary, but most babble, buzz, and blurt like caffeinated adolescents competing for the Ritalin generation’s inevitable senior superlative: Most Obsessive-Compulsive. …
Each time I wander into blogdom, I’m reminded of the savage children stranded on an island in William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. Without adult supervision, they organize themselves into rival tribes, learn to hunt and kill, and eventually become murderous barbarians in the absence of a civilizing structure.
But, really, she’s “been a blog fan from the beginning.” She says so, right after talking about how “creepy” the whole thing is.
Some blogs are obviously better than others at offering criticism and analysis, and savvy web consumers should be trusted to separate the wheat from the chaff. Perhaps, though, that’s the problem in Parker’s eyes: there’s no guiding force behind blogs to lead the consumer correctly down the primrose path. She claims in her 2005 opinion piece that “people tend to abuse power when it’s unearned,” meaning bloggers. But what about the power of the traditional press? How did they earn their power? By being the only game in town, with self-selected editors to decide what’s news and what’s not and from which angle to report it?
Don’t forget that many newspapers and other news outlets — CNN, Fox, etc. — have websites. Where does their complicity lie in all of this?
Reasonable people would not say they want newspapers to fold — that means lost jobs and less focus on local news. We understand, as Parker constantly reminds us, that reporters in the field do most of the grunt work when it comes to collecting the news of the day. Yet do we not have a right to complain when, for example, photos are doctored? It was a blog that discovered that little gem from Reuters. When a company like Microsoft offers a faulty product and people stop buying it, Microsoft does what it can to improve the product and thus improve the bottom line. Yet the mainstream media continue on their merry way, preferring to blame the consumer rather than look at their business practices and ask, “What can we do to fix this?” And I’m not referring to layoffs.
Most of us would like newspapers — and television, for that matter — to present the news in a manner free from bias. And if they still prefer to put their spin on things, how about listing which political party — if any — the staffers belong to? That way we can connect the dots and “read between the lines.” Don’t tell me media folks are unbiased (right or left). Everyone has an opinion. It’s when you let that opinion seep into your reporting without being honest about it that it becomes a problem. I’m not talking about commentators either — they by their nature are expected to display bias one way or another. It’s part of their job description.
I wonder if Parker ever ponders the irony that as she bemoans the “creepy explosion” of the blogosphere, the existence of said blogosphere has given her work much more exposure than back in the day when her column only existed in newspapers that were tossed onto people’s doorsteps. People all over the nation and all over the world can read her columns and either agree with her — or not.
You’re welcome, Kathleen.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Pam Meister is the editor for Family Security Matters and a contributor to Big Hollywood. Her work can also be seen at American Thinker. The views expressed here are her own.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
94 Comments
1. volubrjotr:The BLOG is mightier than the pen! :O)
Mar 19, 2009 - 2:38 am 2. W J A:The unfortunate demise of the print media is in part it’s own fault. Far too many “reporters” would prefer to rewrite the press releases and inject their political biases and call this reporting. Today there are too few reporters who dig for the what, where, who, when and why. Objectivity is a thing of the past.
Mar 19, 2009 - 2:39 am 3. TC:“Most of us would like newspapers — and television, for that matter — to present the news in a manner free from bias.”
I can’t remember the particular article that had me stop buying newspapers a couple years ago, but it was brewing/stewing for years before I finally had it (biased reporting in the news). I got hooked on CNN 24/7 news (television) but that “reporting” ended up following the same agenda as the newspapers and I finally had enough and turned my tv news off shortly after this past U.S. election. I was watching live the night Soledad O’Brien declared that the panel voted “overwhelmingly” in Obama’s favor for that night’s debate (we all saw the amount of hands–it was thisclose to being 50/50)–I actually gasped out loud with how brazen she was. For months I listened to Anderson Cooper subtly diffuse anything positive about Hillary (and I wasn’t even voting for her), George Bush, any republican, and to Cameron Brown’s “no bias no bull” stories about Palin and how CNN (both tv & web) reported on Palin (and she wasn’t a favorite pick of mine)…I had enough. For a news medium to allow itself to be a political attack machine or a propaganda arm is shameful–and frankly, doesn’t deserve to prosper in any way.
Soon after the election I tried watching a CNN special Soledad did on Jim Jones–and I couldn’t even look at the screen when she was on. I had no faith or trust in her reporting…”what is she trying to make me believe”…”what is the real truth”…and for me to have questions like that for something so sinister as the Jim Jones tragedy, well I knew the goose was cooked for CNN.
The goose is overcooked for paper, tv and any mainstream media outlet. It’s not a “dittohead” thing. Society is getting more sophisticated, learning to question, paying attention to the messaging being beamed out to them, and keeping their eyes open. We won’t be spoonfed what to believe anymore, at least a significant and growing number of us. And the media has only themselves to blame. They should have had more honor for their profession and respect for the integrity of their reporting, but they sold out for ego, money, power, fame, who knows.
It’s true that there’s danger when a free society loses its “4th Estate” in it’s purest form (reporting without bias), but it bailed on us long ago. It’s been Puppet Master Theater for too many years. Although MSM knows *we know*, there’s enough of the population that is still able to be manipulated without question to keep the game going for awhile. I think what’s going on right now (talk of failing papers, losing money, etc.) is that they’re squirming in their seats for some government bailout money. Could be considered “Payment Due For Services Rendered” for this administration.
Mar 19, 2009 - 2:43 am 4. canuck:“Esteemed Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker…”
I really have to correct the typo…this should read “Self-esteemed”. This woman is incapable of original thought and basically repeats back the RINO mantra. She has become a useful idiot of the left who has salvaged her dismal career by getting on the Obamamania bus….bought off for an airplane ride or two.
Most of what she writes is Washington elite inside whining, promoted as coming from a “conservative” columnist. This kind of goes with another Zero phrase…Moderate Taliban.
Mar 19, 2009 - 3:47 am 5. Chuck Pelto:TO: Pam Meister
RE: [OT] Mixed Metaphores
That SHOULD read….
Only the INFANTRY, and assorted combat support types who go with them, put their ‘boots-on-the-ground’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Mar 19, 2009 - 4:03 am 6. Chuck Pelto:[In war, as in law, possession is nine points out of ten. And the infantry are the bailiff's men.]
TO: Pam Meister
RE: Apologies
That was Kathleen Parker who said that.
I REALLY should get a cup of coffee in me before blogging.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Mar 19, 2009 - 4:07 am 7. Craig:[There's no such thing as too strong coffee -- only weak people.]
“The biggest challenge facing America’s struggling newspaper industry may not be the high cost of newsprint or lost ad revenue, but ignorance stoked by drive-by punditry.”
As a card carrying member of the ignorant masses, let me be the first to say: thank you for the props.
Let me get that morning cup of coffee for you and your slippers. And bring you that copy of the NYT. There? All better now?
Now STFU.
Mar 19, 2009 - 4:11 am 8. Broadsword:“Lucy Ramirez”.
Mar 19, 2009 - 4:12 am 9. Broadsword:Oh, I missed that, “Moderate Taliban”. He’s the one using an electric knife.
Mar 19, 2009 - 4:14 am 10. beavercleaver:Blogs are another way for free people to express themselves, uncensored and unfettered. They are the essence of liberty, which is why MSM types hate them. MSM types want to control the message (and photoshop the pictures with impunity) , and they cannot control bloggers. Like papers, there are good and lousy blogs. So what? This type of stuff has been going on since colonial times. Ben Franklin’s “Silence Dogood” letters are really early blogs. I am over 50 and rarely even read papers any more. I leave that to my 80+ year old parents. I do hope that newspapers eventually go away, except then I won’t have anything to use to start fires. Long live the bloggers – good and not-so-good!
Mar 19, 2009 - 4:39 am 11. elvis:Why does anybody care about Kathleen Parker?
Mar 19, 2009 - 5:04 am 12. RE:Since Parker has taken to narcissism, her columns have rapidly deteriorated into nonsense. She’s barely worth the *yawn* anymore.
Mar 19, 2009 - 5:06 am 13. Sandra:Reemmber, Kathleen Parker was the so-called “conservative” who made a vicious turn on Palin during the campaign. That punched her ticket and bought her a seat on the bus. She endeared herself to the Washington Post – a “conservative” that they could live with and got her a free ride on the President’s plane where she dutifully reported on the cuteness of the Obmamas’ daughters (which we all knew anyway). The more she writes, the better the Post feels about their selection.
Mar 19, 2009 - 5:33 am 14. ked5:Kathleen Parker is simply wrong. She’s the one out of touch with newspaper readers – it *is* the overly biased reporting driving away subscribers. (or pages and pages of advertising with only a smidgen of an article). I cancelled my subscription years ago because I was tired of it.
Mar 19, 2009 - 5:37 am 15. cedarhill:Kathy Parker is still writing? And here I thought she’d gone to the White House as Token Conservative Lackey.
Mar 19, 2009 - 5:49 am 16. WJ:Writing about what K Parket writes about it is a waste of time. For whatever reason (short-term career prospects?) she decided to become a token “conservative” the left-wing media could call upon.
In her new role she will pretty much always blame conservatives for all the problems, and then get patted on the head from the folks on the cable shows cause she is a good little pet. She is no different from that David Brock guy over at Soros funded Media Matters.
Just ignore her, cause what she writes is such hackery, it is not worthy of comment.
Mar 19, 2009 - 6:06 am 17. Tom H:“Some people have no idea what’s going on in the world and some, including a relative of mine, seem to be proud of that fact. I frankly find that more disturbing than whether people have a higher opinion of Internet news than newsprint news.” I’m in that group – there’s no stress, time to enjoy life, good books, travel, organic living, all the while knowing my permanent home is not here – so why does it matter?
Mar 19, 2009 - 6:16 am 18. AnninCA:On-line news will bloom. There’s a news organization in San Diego now that is strictly on-line now. They do not cover national news, but their stories are all generated by their editorial staff, whom are paid.
So far, they are making money with advertising alone. As the young owner said, “We don’t have to dump 80% into print costs.”
The problem with newspapers is print.
Mar 19, 2009 - 6:17 am 19. AThinkingPerson:#10 beavercleaver….I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head! Well said.
Isn’t it ironic that the MSM is now crying foul that the public is turning away from their spoonfed pablum? Newspapers are shutting down, tv news on the main channels ratings are down and they all stand around scratching their heads. It seems that the public has a hankering for some truth. ’bout time too!
Mar 19, 2009 - 6:30 am 20. Jeff K:Bias is a big reason for lost ad revenue and subscribers. But I got believe the papers inability to change with the times and present information in a manner that encourages newer and younger subscribers will be its ultimate down fall. The real losers are us. The loss of solid, in-depth reporting and the transformation from “Watchdogs” to “Political Activist” has cost this country and its people a fundamental element of a fully functioning democracy. State sponsored censorship (fairness doctrine or some form) and federally funded news is next.
Mar 19, 2009 - 6:34 am 21. Andrew Ian Dodge:Newspapers are dying because most of them are just filled with AP and other wire stories “touched up”. People are realising that they can get the same stuff online for nothing and not have to worry about messing fingers. Dead-tree newspapers demise is entirely self-inflicted.
Mar 19, 2009 - 6:48 am 22. Larry J:Paper as a news delivery media is effectively obsolete. Under the best of circumstances, the “news” in a paper is about 8 hours old by the time the paper arrives. I dropped weekday delivery of my local paper because it didn’t arrive early enough for me to read it before going to work. By the time I get home from work, the “news” in that paper would be almost 24 hours old. Contrast that with getting news on the Internet where updates are frequent and paper based news just can’t compete.
What today’s so-called journalists need to grasp is that they’re not in the newspaper business, they’re in the information business. They need to find a way to earn money by providing timely and accurate information. It’d be great if the reporting were bias-free but simply making it accurate would be a big improvement over what we get today. If they can’t do that, they’ll go the way of the buggy-whip makers of old.
Mar 19, 2009 - 6:50 am 23. Delia:1. volubrjotr:
“The BLOG is mightier than the pen! :O)”
~
I agree! Plus, blogs usually have comment sections or as I like to refer to them “airing of grievances sections” in which you can interact/reply/debate the topic at hand. Pretty darned nifty spifty [iffin' I do say so muh-self].
Mar 19, 2009 - 6:56 am 24. Jack Okie:#2 – A correction, if I may. “Who, what, when, where” is reporting. “Why” is editorializing.
Mar 19, 2009 - 6:59 am 25. fear Obama:And Pajamas Media!
\
\
\
SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE!
\
\
Conwoman- Nancy Pipsqueak:
BAILOUTS
Mar 19, 2009 - 7:06 am 26. TOhio:Yet the mainstream media continue on their merry way, preferring to blame the consumer rather than look at their business practices and ask, “What can we do to fix this?”
Translation: Why don’t they like our liberal views? There must be something wrong with people if they don’t want to hear or read our biased propaganda everyday.
I say, let all of these liberal news organizations die.
This is our economic free speech and it needs to be heard loud and clear.
The Washington Post, The New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC – need to be financially starved to death.
Since they insist on being liberal, let the liberals support them. They’ll eventually discover that there aren’t enough liberals to keep them all alive. And I say GOOD!
The liberal media is as much to blame as the politicians for the mess that we’re in right now. They need to pay the price and it can’t happen soon enough for me!
Mar 19, 2009 - 7:27 am 27. aloysiusmiller:Well they closed comments on the WaPo article and they don’t have e-mail set up for Ms. Parker.
But she is absolutely wrong. As has been pointed out news is expensive but opinion is free. There are far more informed opinions on the web than there are in the MSM. But we would continue to read and pay for the MSM if it wasn’t all opinion. There is no news. There is just agenda. All stories are served up based on the JournoList approved storyline.
I would pay $500 per year to a great news service that went after story with a minimum of agenda.
Mar 19, 2009 - 7:49 am 28. Robert Hooper:When the media starts reporting in an unbiased manner readers may return. I had been a lifetime reader of the WaPo and had considered you left leaning but making an honest attempt to present unbiased news until the last couple of years. Your reputation as an honest news outlet died when your coverage of the Obama campaign started.
Buh bye!
Mar 19, 2009 - 7:50 am 29. Janet Adams:I am a retired educator. Used to love to read the morning paper however as
Mar 19, 2009 - 8:10 am 30. james:I heard some on comment on the telly this A.M. I feel as though I am reading
an opinion article instead of a report on the news.
I agree. My husband gets his news from the paper. I get my news from
various sources on the internet and radio. I use my common sense to
decide on the truth.
The same goes for television. I am one of those fans of the EVIL Fox news.
I notice many stations tell the news but leave out some details.
To sum it up the reason I stopped reading the paper, buying news magazines
etc. it because I don’t want to pay for propaganda.
I did grow up in the 40’s.
Mrs. Parker has certainly “grown” in the last few years. I used to like her.
Mar 19, 2009 - 8:21 am 31. Stosh2:The reason newspapers are failing, Kathleen, is not just that they are fanatically and uncritically liberal; they have always been thus. It is that they have let it creep into everything in the paper and, more important, everything NOT in the paper.
The marching band tub-thumping that all major dailies did for Obama – and still do – is not lost on their audiences. We have Just Said No.
Journalism schools are like ed. schools: unless and until the business closes them down, there is no hope of reform. And unless and until newspapers start to do Watergate-type investigative reporting again, instead of tracking down Bristol Palin’s boyfriend, they will continue to shut their doors.
I have been in international business for over 20 years – setting up new businesses in just about every market there is around the globe.
Almost from the beginning, 20 years ago, I learned that I could not establish a working business, earn my pay or put food on my table if I relied on the news and information as provided by the NYT, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, etc.
So, I used them as headline services to find out the events of the day, doing the information gathering / interpretation on my own.
Now, they barely provide headline services since they are so selective on which events they choose to cover. It’s difficult to classify them as “news” sources.
Mar 19, 2009 - 8:51 am 32. SAF:I gave up on most of the main stream media years ago because the news was so biased. Why pay money to hear Republicans suck because iqhdihiu or Democrats are great because quwjfw
Mar 19, 2009 - 9:00 am 33. David W. Lincoln:Did Kathleen arrive at her conclusion of “Bias” and “Arrogance” by Bernard Goldberg, before she
read either book?
If so, we see why cultural sterility is shown by those stuck in the ’60s, whereas vibrancy is
Mar 19, 2009 - 9:08 am 34. jerryofva:exhibited by those who stand up to selective vision.
A couple of points that I have made in various threads appearing in the last few days:
First, newspapers aren’t dying because of content or bias. They are dying because of they are hemorrhaging advertising dollars as rates fall and classified ads can be place for free on the internet. I would say that Craigslist has more to do with the collapse of the newspaper then bloggers.
I think it was James Taranto who predicted shortly after the 2004 election that the rise of alternatives to the MSM (now the State Affiliated Media or SAM) would lead to increased polarization and bias as conservative readers/viewer migrated to alternatives. There is no reason to believe that bias should lead to bankruptcy since there enough consumers who either agree with the bias or don’t care. Sorting the market by opinion should not lead to a collapse of an industry with several hundred million consumers.
Bloggers are the least likely candidate for the cause of the demise of newspapers because blogging only replaces the OPED page. Bloggers are as dependent on news collectors like Reuters or the AP as anybody else for stories. If bloggers started their own wire service then they would be a serious content competitor to newspapers and broadcast news. Until that happens they aren’t the cause.
The reality is that the people who read political blogs are the same people who used to read publications like Commentary or Harpers in the pre-internet days. But really only a small minority of population read or still reads these publications. Most people don’t care enough to read anything more then superficial reporting. How do you think Obama elected?
I don’t want to puncture my fellow MSM haters’ fantasies but it isn’t content that is killing off newspapers it is a combination of free internet advertising and an increasingly illiterate and uncaring population that is doing it. There just isn’t enough serious readers to support an advertising base anymore.
Mar 19, 2009 - 9:22 am 35. Dave (the rational Dave):I think Parker is projecting pure self interest these days. She gets her lunch from the MSM cafeteria and does not appreciate those that would replace the cafeteria with a Bass Pro Shop. The final result is a Palin hating harpy.
Mar 19, 2009 - 9:44 am 36. deguello:This vicious hag,is just angry that drivel spouting lib-elitist tumors, are becoming irrelevant in the face of internet empowered citizens. I look forward to the day when “news”and papers are read only by archaeologists,and cultural anthropologists, interested in the mechanisms of mass hysteria,and propaganda. Parker will one day be taking your order, at the local Burger King.Who needs a newspaper like the NYTIMES,that tells us that EMINEM is a” genius? Only libtards.DEGUELLO TO PARKER:DROP DEAD!
Mar 19, 2009 - 9:51 am 37. trojan2:There have been many reasons cited for the coming demise of newspapers.Most of them have some validity.There is in addition another significant reason.Cost.
Mar 19, 2009 - 10:12 am 38. Self-hating Boomer:I used to read the NYT,WSJ,New York Post,Investors Business Daily and a local paper every weekday.Add in the weekends and it is more than $40 per week.Over$ 2,000 per year.Sound economics demand that I now get as
much news as I can online.
In other news, the National Buggy Whip Manufacturer’s Association blames the newfangled horseless carriage for their current but temporary economic problems…
Mar 19, 2009 - 10:31 am 39. geoffgo:TC@3
but they sold out for ego, money, power, fame, who knows.
Add in there, near the top, “for the Leftist cause,” and it’ll become obvious…
Mar 19, 2009 - 10:38 am 40. Delia:38. Self-hating Boomer:
“In other news, the National Buggy Whip Manufacturer’s Association blames the newfangled horseless carriage for their current but temporary economic problems…”
~
ROTFLMAO! Ack! Hope my keyboard and monitor can survive that ‘un.
Comedy GOLD.
Mar 19, 2009 - 10:43 am 41. seven:The daliy News is a day late and a dollar short.
I didn’t like to pay a dollar for a liberals opinion.
Mar 19, 2009 - 10:43 am 42. Terry Gain:Now the opinions are twice as venomous and the price went to 2 dollars.
Kathleen Parker is in love with President Obamateur. She hasn’t a clue.
Mar 19, 2009 - 10:43 am 43. karlstro2u:I agree with you that if written media wasn’t so bias I would still be buying the paper. Obama’s election was all about his likability. Very few investigative articles on his ability to lead, or past life. It was a movement to shove his character down my throat. I’m intelligent and like to make my own choices. I want just news. What I have read from the bias press, the only good thing for a newspaper is to line the dog pen!
Mar 19, 2009 - 10:45 am 44. ic:Benefit from a newspaper: news (read it on AP), editorials (politician’s talking points, not worth the paper they are printed on), coupons (print them from the web).
Cost: environmentally unsound: kill trees, use enormous amount of energy to print, dirty reader’s hands, used papers need more energy to recycle
Cost – Benefit < 0
Mar 19, 2009 - 10:51 am 45. wancow:1. volubrjotr:
“The BLOG is mightier than the pen! :O)”
It’s funny how the dying media is trying to blame anything other than its own crappy product for its falure.
The San Francisco Chronicle is currently on death watch… I can’t WAIT for it to go away!
Mar 19, 2009 - 10:54 am 46. ic:Oops: error, instant (almost!) corrections not hidden at the lower left-hand corner of page 46: Cost – Benefit > 0
Mar 19, 2009 - 10:57 am 47. geoffgo:TOhio@27
Unfortunately and predictably, the newspapers won’t die. At least not the most liberal ones in top 30 cities. The Left already has a plan underway for a newspaper bailout, removing all the anti-competitive statutes, so they can collude into one big print-version of PBS and NPR. The Obama Daily(?), mandatory subscription through subsidy.
Mar 19, 2009 - 11:06 am 48. geoffgo:aloy@27
And, 9,999 more of us would pay $50 per year for it.
Mar 19, 2009 - 11:11 am 49. Wireless:So I had a discussion with an editor who works for a major daily in a city “of size” and I knew then that newspapers were doomed. Since Craigslist has robbed the paper of their subsidy, they needed to figure out how they could make the rest of the paper pay. That paper may have had a clue on how the world had changed but they had not a clue that they needed to change. And it isn’t just the usual bias. They stopped being a check and balance for a city that has not had a Republican in charge for 30 years (and the exception was a RINO country club type). So why bother? They got lazy and neglected to do the work. The newspapers, if they are interested in surviving, need to look in the mirror.
Mar 19, 2009 - 11:45 am 50. gianni:No one trusts the media since they basically went in the tank for Obama and tried desperately to win the election for him. That is not the role of the media, so we are telling you, get lost! We don’t need you anymore, and we don’t trust you. You cover stories selectively, and do not report on those that will hurt Obama and the Democrats. You (the MSM) got scooped by the National Enquirer–yes, THAT National Enquirer–on the John Edwards story, and you have also tried desperately to whitewash the Larry Sinclair allegations against Barack Obama. Start doing your job, and we might come back. But as it stands now, no one trusts you.
Mar 19, 2009 - 11:46 am 51. Gayle Miller:Ms. Parker tries really hard but ultimately fails in her analysis.
Bottom line: a lot of the bloggers (including me) are products of respected J-schools to begin with!
And saying that, in part, the newspapers have only themselves to blame is like saying that the Pope is only “somewhat” Catholic!
I am 66 years old, nearly 67, and I can remember disdaining the Cleveland Press as an adolescent because everything I read in it was biased in one political direction and one direction only. That was over 50 years ago and the only difference between then and now is that then we didn’t have the Internet to provide the other point of view.
The function of the mainstream media is not to tell us what THEY want us to know. Their function is – or should be – to report FACTS and occurrences and let us decide what we think about them. I know it’s a novel concept but hey, I’m an old fart and that’s how I think!
Mar 19, 2009 - 11:49 am 52. Frank:I know far too many people who stopped paying attention to what’s going on in the world because it’s “too depressing”, as if burying their head in the sand will make it all go away. Their pathetic apathy pisses me off
Mar 19, 2009 - 11:58 am 53. fred:I subscribe to the online version of the Wall Street Journal and Barron’s. Also, Morningstar. I get other news and facts from a variety of sources and for local news and weather I check a couple of local papers here in Southern New Hampshire. I have never subscribed to or even often read the New York Times, even in grad and undergrad schools. The Boston Globe is a liberal rag and I only read it online for sports.
When I was an undergraduate journalism majors were not seen as the creme-de-la-creme, or the brightest bulbs on campus. My major was in economics and my minor was in philosophy. I never met a journalism major in any of those courses.
Mar 19, 2009 - 11:59 am 54. geoffgo:Left-leaning bias is not being helpful. However, the new digital media is instantaneous, real-time and ubiquitous. Really, really hard to find any model that can profitably compete, if dependent on ink-on-paper. “Bits are infinitely faster, cheaper, more modifiable and trackable than “atoms” and produce liitle waste.
Two of the bullets we used in our overhead slide presentations to newspaper publishers (ca. 1985-88) to alert them to the approaching information tsunami were:
186,000 miles per second. Not just a good idea, it’s the law. Let’s talk about business velocity…
Gutenberg never envisioned the chainsaw(TM). Let’s talk about information distribution vs. the publishing process…
Lots of blank stares observed at many meetings.
Mar 19, 2009 - 12:09 pm 55. koblog:Look. The papers detest people like me. They’d like me to go away.
I did.
Mar 19, 2009 - 12:20 pm 56. donttreadonme:Kathleen Parker couldn’t get herself out of a paper bag if you hosed it down and gave her a straight-razor.
Mar 19, 2009 - 12:26 pm 57. Wayne Lusvardi:As a person who runs a blog which mainly covers a local newspaper in Pasadena, California (i.e., PasadenaSubRosa.com), I believe a blog serves as a “feeder” which directs people to read the local online version of the newspaper. Also, if the newspapers missed the S&L crisis of the 1980’s, the significance of sub prime loans and affordable housing in 1990’s and 2000’s, among a myriad of other issues, why read them? Example: In 1999, Fannie Mae announced availability of sub prime loans for minorities. What this announcement really meant was the “socializing” of housing finance system. But nobody reported it that way. So it takes bloggers to bring some light of interpretation to the news.
Mar 19, 2009 - 12:48 pm 58. A Boy Named Sue:I’d pay twice what I am paying now for a newspaper with news. I’m sure I am not alone.
Publishers used to make money with news: but then the “2d generation” took over at the New York Times and LA Times. They had never worked competitively outside Dad’s company, never built a business or knew people that had. The Sulzbergers and the Chandlers were some of the richest and most insulated people in the US. To them, real working people were declasse and needed guidance.
Pinch Sulzberger and those like him dedicated themselves to a “betterment” agenda–promoting gun control, higer taxes, higher spending, generous welfare payments and every maner of restriction on polluting, exploitaive, manufacturers. They opposed what the “better people” like them opposed–the death penalty, tax cuts, term limits and the ability of voters to decide laws directly like in California, where voters can actually enact laws by majority votes. In California the voters enacted property tax limits, term limits, and a Three Srikes law for criminals. The LA Times opposed each one.
In the process, the publishers stuffed their ranks with people that think just like they do. They have style amnuals that dictate what words to avoid, what stories to hype. The result?
A small weekly newspaper in LA got the mayor’s appointment books and reported that he spends only 11% of his time on city business. A TV station broke the story about the mayor’s affair with a reporter.
The Times ran a series of high profile stories when a liberal law professor almost missed being dean at a new law school–but barely covered the race for mayor this year. It has run over a dozen opinion pieces urging higher taxes though. It didn’t cover the tea party protests this year. I doubt if it has one reporter that can find his/her way to city hall. But corruption stories are not favored: thye might decrease support for higher taxes.
So readers cancel their subscriptions. The Times reacts by cutting reporters and giving its readers–more opinion pieces.
Letters to the Editor have for years moaned about the lack of news. Yet, the LA Times thinks –like GM, like Ms. Parker–that it can relate to its declining readership and its all the fault of those horrible bloggers.
Its not.
Mar 19, 2009 - 12:49 pm 59. Jake:When I read an article in a newspaper or on the net, I always look to see who wrote it. If the NY or LA Times has the nod, I quickly move on. You just can’t trust them to give the story and honest shake. I’m over 50 and I don’t think I can ever go back.. Somehow I’m going to have to find out what’s on special at the Food Lion though…..
Mar 19, 2009 - 12:56 pm 60. Susan:The Web would have rendered print newspapers obsolete some time. Blatant bias simply moved the date up.
Nonetheless, I find it fascinating that Parker wrote about the impact of disgruntled conservatives at all as an element in the demise of the print newspaper. Normally, the story is that it is only about technology. (No one wants to factor in the role of an aliterate society or to contemplate how that came to be.)
Next … magazines, especially those that are text-heavy.
Before we get too happy; Parker is correct. Most journalist do not make much money. So why do they choose this career? My guess … power to shape the beliefs of a community or society. That drive will not go away. It will just morph onto another platform.
Mar 19, 2009 - 1:10 pm 61. ic:60. Susan: Most journalist do not make much money. So why do they choose this career?
Because they can’t do anything else. Those who can, do; those who can’t, talk. (Something like that!)
Btw, really good journalists make tons of money by writing really good books. The reason most journalists do not make much money because most journalists are not good.
Related toughts: next to demise: TV news. Their priorities are wrong. Instead of paying reporters to gather news, they pay multi-millions to nice looking brainless Barbies and Kens to read the same news from a centralized source, such as AP; and they parrot the same opinions from their favourite politicians. The product differentiation is on the packaging. Once you get over the packaging, there is nothing there.
Mar 19, 2009 - 1:53 pm 62. Joe Bison:One problem for the newspapers is that the
liberal education system they have supported
turns out non readers. Free short editions
that can be read in a few minutes may be the
answer. These are supported solely by ads.
The shorter articles leave less space for
leftist political opinion backfill. It will
still be there just less of it. Also a lot
of left wing opinion and editorial columns
are axed in that format.
The problem for the unemployed to be is that
Mar 19, 2009 - 1:54 pm 63. Marc Malone:nobody will read the blogs they will set up.
On the web there is a lot of choice-something
they are not used to.
Parker = Dhimmi
I LIKE newspapers. I like reading them with my morning coffee. I like the variety they offer. They provide local info. They print things that I would never have looked into for myself. They expand my horizons. I stopped subscribing years ago.
Why? Because of the clear agenda. When they ignore certain stories, refuse to criticize, slant everything, they simply cease to be news, but rather, are propoganda rags. The idea also of, “If it bleeds, it leads.” is also a big turn-off. I want some good stuff on the front page.
I agree that they do so much of the digging up of stories… or rather, they used to. THAT is the problem. They don’t do that so much anymore.
I could make a paper turn a profit. I could, because I know what I want. Ad revenues are down, because of Craigslist, but it is also down because of reduced subscription rates. Answer? Increase subscriptions!
Make the paper interesting, and don’t make it available online. Do not allow reprints. Do your own investigations. Do follow-ups on stories. If a story was of interest, then come back to it in six months or a year with a here’s-how-it-all-turned-out story; here’s-what-happened-to-him. People love such running stories. Add to that positive stories of local interest, plus reviews of food and entertainment by people who have non-elite tastes and who can turn a phrase, and you’ll have something no one else online can offer.
Build a solid niche. You’re fighting the big-box stores. Offer something they can’t.
Mar 19, 2009 - 1:55 pm 64. jacksonhunted:I can’t believe Parker is this ignorant. In fact, I’m sure of it.
Parker rose to prominence in part as she participated in early blogs that focused on men’s rights and opposed the excesses of feminism. She often criticized the old media even way back then in the mid-90’s and predicted the demise of, among other things, newspapers.
This is a gratuitous slap at conservatives by Parker. She has to do it. Otherwise, she won’t get face time on television.
So much for Kathleen. She isn’t even relevant anymore.
I agree with the thrust of this blog/column. The scariest thing isn’t which media outlet people prefer. It is the opting out totally from any information that so many people choose.
A generation ago many publishers anticipated technology would destroy the newspaper amd made plans to answer the challenge. Those were never implemented.
Ten years ago, people under 40 stopped watching broadcast journalism. That trend has accelerated, and cable has done to TV what the “net did to newspapers.
Will blog readers fall by the wayside?
Technology is the reason newspapers are dead. Even Kathleen Parker knows it. Instead of being the left-wing’s dancing bear conservative basher, she might want to consider real analysis of why people have opted out of information. That would require real grub work, though, and not a conservative minstrel show geared toward the Left.
Mar 19, 2009 - 2:16 pm 65. fear Obama:In the 1920s
The railroad owners looked at small trucks and 2 ton semi trailers and laughed-
They will never take 95 percent of our business!
1935
The large ocean liner owners looked at small 15 passenger airplanes and laughed-
They will never take 95 percent of our business.
2008
The large newspaper owners looked at blogs like PJM and laughed-
They will never take 95 percent of our business!
Those that do not study history go broke!
Mar 19, 2009 - 2:44 pm 66. Michael:Ther is the obvious agenda, there is the drive to find the worst most horrific stories possible, there is the plain bad reporting. I think that covers most of it.
People complain about the papers/TV being depressing and it is. Look at what is reported. If nothing disgusting is going on locally then they will find something that is horrific on the other side of the country that has no real personal value to the local reader/viewer.
Bad reporting I saw working at a police precinct. I was not an officer but worked in the precinct house. I saw and heard what the real stories were. When I read/heard about it the next day the details were OFTEN wrong.
And of course the bias has become undeniable.
Game point and match.
Mar 19, 2009 - 3:42 pm 67. Delia:66. Michael,
The news/media is almost always negative mostly from the left but from the right too.
Our country needs a respite from all of this doom and gloom. I’d like to see and participate in more positive exchanges in dialogue.
There are days when I load PJM into my browser in hopes of some happy or even funny/silly news only to find more anger and sadness.
Sometimes I just want to clown around and smile and laugh. *shakes booty*
Is that so awful?
Mar 19, 2009 - 4:22 pm 68. misanthropicus:I used to be a big nespaper/magazine user, LA Times/ NY Times + twice a month airport glossies, total approx. $ 30 a week.
Mar 19, 2009 - 5:25 pm 69. JED:Last fall, the base way LA Times went about the Khalidi affaire topped everything and made me quit completely giving them money.
Kathleen, don’t blame the bloggers for people avoiding to pay for your services – look around you, at Dana Priest, Eric Lichtblau, Steve Lopez, Don Baquat and the rest of the crew, the actist liberalism has a very big part in the disapprearance of printed jounalism.
Try to morph in something else – but now you guys, you are in a quite a challenging environment for you. You have competition.
We might try the phrase of old media versus the new media. The old media, TV, radio, newspapers is one way, them to us, in our face. Without the remote there is no self defense with the info-bombardment. Yelling at the talking heads is only marginally therapeutic or annoying to anyone else in the room. We get their output and their interpretations of events.
Mar 19, 2009 - 6:12 pm 70. Moneyrunner:With blogs we get interaction. We get democracy. We get shared or opposing opinions. We get new and potentially better possibilities. We get to talk back.
A commenter wrote: “First, newspapers aren’t dying because of content or bias. They are dying because of they are hemorrhaging advertising dollars as rates fall and classified ads can be place for free on the internet. I would say that Craigslist has more to do with the collapse of the newspaper then bloggers. ”
Well, no. Newspapers are dying because their readership is falling and advertisers are not willing to pay exorbitant rates for fewer eyes seeing their ads. And readership is falling because – given a choice -few people wish to pay for being insulted. It may work for Don Rickles, but my local papers is no Don Rickles.
Mar 19, 2009 - 7:07 pm 71. Rachel Peepers:You can blame the horseless carriage for the falling demand for horses and carriages cerca 1903.
The refrigerator for making people forget the ice box.
The CD player for obsoleting the record player.
And so on and so forth.
And you could say in much the same way that internet news is responsible for the end to easy availability of newspaper bird cage filler. But you’d be wrong.
Because horses and carriages, in 1903, were doing the best they could. The record player was capable of reproducing pristine fidelity. The ice box made a cold beer ice cold.
But journalists everywhere deserve to be permanently shelved with layer upon layer of dust like the 1938 treatise on Modern French military war tactics. For they’re not doing their jobs. They’re doing America dirt.
J school graduates have failed us. They’ve misstated the facts, slanted their stories. Made a career of looking the other way. Made a presidential candidate their own.
Disseminated misinformation with the frequency of birth control pills on spring break; by the delivery truck load.
One example. The February, 21, 2008 New York Times factless, factuous, feckless smear job at the height of the Presidential campaign, romantically linking John McCain with lobbiest Vicki Iseman.
Another: Their failure to dig for the truth when Dan Rather tried to smear the National Guard service of George Bush, and tip the Presidential election.
Not to mention the refusal of the free press to find out exactly what Barack Obama was up to in Chicago breaking bread with an unrepentent terrorist, listening to Pastor Jeremy Wright’s hate-America-speech, anti-female speech and racist speech for twenty two years, while denying Barack ever heard a disparaging word.
Failing to ask Barack during the campaign exactly what he meant by redistibution of wealth.
Exactly what he meant when he said “the suburbs bore me”.
Exactly what he meant when he said he’d do away with earmarks.
Did he mean some earmarks?
Did he expect to ever sign a bill with more than 100, 1,000, or 9,000 earmarks?
And I’m curious about something else. While journalists failed to dig into Barack’s Chicago dealings, why in the world did they converge on Wasilla, Alaska by the thousands, specifically with the intent on digging up dirt on Sarah Palin?
And this is just the tip of the unethical, biased filled, incompetent journalistic iceberg.
Look, the constitution gives the free press guarantees to make sure government doesn’t interfere with their job of discovering and reporting the truth; the news.
But today’s journalist are so irresponsible I don’t think they deserve any guarantees. I don’t think they can be trusted.
I’d be much more willing to guarantee the rights of the left and right wing bloggers. Let them fight it out verbally and when the dust settles, the American people can decide for themselves the truth.
I used to ride trains a lot and read a lot of newspapers, always preferring the single one-fold Daily News type rather than the Chicago Tribute three-fold. Now, though, that doesn’t really matter. I couldn’t care less if they all fold.
Have a nice day,
Mar 19, 2009 - 8:10 pm 72. Oscar the Grump:Rachel
I think I might have already told this story; however, its worth repeating again.
When Chas Freeman got the boot, the LA Times had an opinion piece about how the Jewish lobby was fully responsible for it happening. When I read the article, I decided to take some action and called the paper asking to speak to their Opinion editor. I was given to somebody who listened to my complaint. I explained that their story was totally prejudiced and left out very important points ie: his relationship with the Saudis, his relationship with China, and that Nancy Pelosi had a lot to do with what happened. The lady on the phone informed me that the article was an opinion of the paper’s editorial staff. She let me know that I was welcome to send them a letter to the editor and that I was limited to 150 words. I explained that I would be glad to write an opinion article of my own with an equal number of words to match their article. She refused my offer.
Upon her refusal, I let her know that I wouldn’t write any pitiful 150 word letter; instead, I wanted to cancel my subscription. I refused to support a paper that only told half the story. And, since this was the opinion of their editorial staff, I was also voicing my opinion. I had her transfer me to circulation. I explained my story to the lady in circulation who took time to take down notes and information, and cancelled my subscription.
This is why the newspapers are losing circulation. Each one of us makes a concious choice about how much “cr*p” we are going to take.
Mar 19, 2009 - 8:12 pm 73. Angry White Dude:When this paper decided to express a very slanted opinion, I drew a line and acted. I’m sure it was just a minor thing to them a small annoyance. They are in financial trouble. I’m sure that enough of us, annoyances, have dropped this paper for good reason and I’ll be glad to see them bankrupt.
I am proud to do my part to take 4k readers away from MSM rags every day on my blog! Unlike the MSM, I don’t pretend to be balanced. I tell it like it is from a conservative viewpoint…without apology!
Angry White Dude
Mar 19, 2009 - 8:19 pm 74. john from cinncinatti:“what we have here is a failure to communicate.” the media feels that they can manipulate the unwashed masses because they are the intelligentsia. when i heard a newspaper guy say that, i thought to myself what an pompous ass,and that was 30 years ago. where else can i have interactive news? i had to laugh my wife just asked who is Kathleen Parker? i told her it was a blogger on the internet. i hope she doesn’t think we are the same kind of people….
Mar 19, 2009 - 8:27 pm 75. fred:Delia @67
I hear ya. I do equities’ research, so every day for quite a while now it’s been a stead diet of gloom and doom. Some days I don’t want to get out of bed. We really do need more fun, humor, and digression from the usual. We need it badly. For the first time in my entire life I am not sure of our nation’s future. Plus, I’m a parent. And it’s not just economics, it’s foreign policy too. There’s also the matter of serious downgrading of our military about to take place. There is not much out there to be optimistic about, if you’re a traditional American.
The mainstream media fails to truly enlighten, entertain, and elevate. Very often, when reading an article in a paper or magazine I get a third of the way in and I’m saying to myself “Yes, yes, I know where this guy is going and I can complete his or her thoughts long before I even get there.” Very little truly insightful and intelligent writing out there. Look, journalists are not thinkers. I have to remind myself of this all the time, so as to summon the patience to get through truly tiresome prose and what passes for thought.
So, in the midst of this truly dreary landscape I thank God I’m a sports fan. I have that to fall back on. Unless, of course, one is a Boston Bruins’ fan these days and is enduring a terrible slump that team is in the midst of as we head towards the Stanley Cup playoffs.
So, PJM contributors… let there be, every now and then, some merriment mixed in to the usual fare.
Mar 19, 2009 - 9:30 pm 76. Delia:71. Rachel Peepers,
Just tap your shoes three times and tell yourself [with a straight face] three times:
“Loopholes are only for the elites”
“Loopholes are only for the elites”
“Loopholes are only for the elites”
-And, then lift your mug from your suds and have a good cry at reality.
Mar 19, 2009 - 10:14 pm 77. Ben:Great essay! Many great points here. Hope Parker starts holding her own newspapers up to the same holy standards, she insists bloggers meet.
Mar 20, 2009 - 1:20 am 78. W J A:#14 Jack Okie. You’re right, but “Why” can be objective too.
Mar 20, 2009 - 2:23 am 79. Bobby:There are many senior citizens who aren’t crazy about or interesting in the Internet. They’re going to be hurt the most by not getting their papers they subscribe to. Fortunately, my aged mother has no reason to worry about her hometown newspaper since there are many senior citizens like her who aren’t into the Internet.
Mar 20, 2009 - 6:40 am 80. jerryofva:Moneyrunner:
I am the commentator who wrote those words. Your response indicates that you make the same error in projection as the MSM/SAM elites. You think everybody is motivated by the same things as a blog readers/participants on either end of the political spectrum. Most people aren’t news junkies and only actively address issues when needed. They couldn’t care less about biased news reporting. Newspapers are dying from a combination of a loss of functional literacy, short attention spans and the flight of advertising dollars to the free medium of the internet. It is pure technological change coupled with a dying desire to look at the news in depth in the under thirty crowd. The Washington Times is losing readers as fast as the Post despite their more actual mainstream reporting. The Times no longer publishes a Saturday edition. If there was a widespread desire to have balanced newspaper reporting the Times would be doing better wouldn’t it?
Mar 20, 2009 - 7:14 am 81. Michael:I had a sports team to lift my spirits…and then the Sun’s managment dismantled the most entertaining to watch team in sports. I just can’t catch a break.
Mar 20, 2009 - 8:51 am 82. Delia:75. fred,
Aww (((fred)))! Your post brought me a smile and a twinkle in my eye. Thank you, hon! I needed some light in the darkness. *smooches you on the nose*
I’m a girlie girl and I don’t have a ’sports team’ to bring me out of the doldrums. I probably need to play more music and dance like I used to. I’ve gotten really bad about allowing myself a chance to just ‘enjoy’ something/anything. Yes! Delia shall dance today!
Mar 20, 2009 - 9:30 am 83. JW:I’d like to know who “crowned” this woman and those many other “experts” in the media as “Esteemed”…or lately, even intelligent?
It’s evident to almost all, that todays “reporters” are just political polly-wogs..advertisers for their, mostly, left leaning veiws….people who want the reality of life will obviously look elsewhere for theirs…lies and propaganda turn truly boring after time….that’s why you see less and less people reading newspapers, because they’ve become cesspools of liberal thought…can’t believe them….
Mar 20, 2009 - 1:37 pm 84. Navas de Tolosa:And we should be very careful about throwing unearned terms around when it comes to any of todays media….most are not esteemed, or, experts…but rather, brainwashed sponges of the left…
There is little doubt that the demise of MSM was self-induced. Did the perpetrators at these propaganda outlets think they could get away with their deceptions forever? Their fate was sealed when a reasonable alternative developed.
The MSM tried to extend their slanted coverage into the internet, but it hasn’t worked. Clearly this wasn’t the blogger’s fault, after all, they were all competing on the same turf. Only organizations like the WSJ are likely to survive. They put content and opinion (clearly labeled) on different pages.
I do worry that Obama may bail out CNBC. Though, at least then the lefty shills will be known for what they have become.
Mar 20, 2009 - 1:40 pm 85. Marie Claude:I am glad that our lefties papers are pointng on what do our president, but I dont rely only on them, I check what the foreign press says too ; though what gives me more work is to check what the think_tanks edit, generally it’s where opinions are expressed, and it is unbelievable the errors or volontary bias I can find in them.
Mar 20, 2009 - 4:26 pm 86. SharkGirl:I’m one of those who bash newspapers, but I’m not biased. I bash the TV news too. They won’t tell on their shareholders when they’re participating in corruption. They are protective of the corporations that own them. They’re protective of their advertisers.
When they’re able to report the news REGARDLESS of who they’re reporting about, then perhaps I’ll trust them again, but probably not. If a major shareholder of Knight Ridder and Gannett are breaking the laws, and the news media won’t report it, why should I support them?
Our local newspaper bashed the Republican Party and publicly announced it was supporting Obama. Like that’s going to build trust?
Besides, by the time a newspaper prints their headlines, it’s already old news on the Internet.
Mar 20, 2009 - 4:30 pm 87. SharkGirl:Oh yes, and an afterthought. I’m one of the bloggers the news media hates. McClatchy, Knight Ridder, Gannett are regular visitors to my blog.
Mar 20, 2009 - 4:31 pm 88. AST:This is a case of coincidence being mistaken for cause. People are spending on cellphones, computers, internet access, HDTV, DVRs, gourmet coffee and every other new thing.
Newspapers are not new. They’re old, messy, heavy, cluttering and polluting. They tell us we’re overloading our landfills and destroying forests, but still expect us to buy our information printed wood pulp with smeary black ink.
Maybe in a few years we’ll have tabloid sized, foldable high definition displays for our cellphone/internet/pda/gps/ebook devices, and the newspaper format will return somewhat, but it’s not coming back on paper.
Mar 20, 2009 - 8:49 pm 89. Wally Lind:Newspapers are slumping because they are yesterdays’ media. The cable and internet news organizations are what will keep up journalistic standards, if anything does. It certainly won’t be the blogs. Journalism is yellow because people who call themselves “journalists” have peed on their media by taking one political side or the other. Pee turns things yellow. Just watch MSNBC.
Mar 20, 2009 - 9:42 pm 90. Marina:Kathleen Parker is not a token conservative, she’s a MANCHURIAN LIBERAL.
Remember all this Gramsci-Alinsky-etc. stuff about marching through the institutions? Some masked libs had become justices, another college professors, yet another media patriarchs or Hollywood brainwashers. And one small but significant group has become “conservative activists”. They actually have been libs all their lifes, but pretended to be conservative, just to come out at the right moment (I strongly suspect Colin Powel was one of them: he once said he wanted to candidate for president, but when asked about the party, he suddenly fell silent). Andrew Sullivan is definitely such a scum. He’s written his f— book, OMG, “Conservative Soul: How we lost it and how to get it back” or something like this. What a defender of conservatism! And then it comes: Obama vs. Sarah. And this b… trashes the most conservative candidate in order to promote the most liberal one. Michelle Malkin called him “political chameleon” a couple of years ago. I would say: MANCHURIAN LIBERAL.
Many RINOs are such people. Not all of them, but really many. Remember, how many high-ranked reps tried to hurt Bush during his presidency (or at least didn’t prevent him from being hurt by the libs: ABC-doctored interview e.g. – and shocked O’Reily: “President’s people KNEW that ABC does such things! WHY did they let him go there?” – That what I would like to know too…)? And when I think what those “conservatives” piranhas had done to Sarah, I just lose any doubts.
And look at the career of Mrs. Parker: she pretends to be conservative, but makes her money at the liberal MSM. Liberals had made her to what she is now. Liberals promoted her and made her a star. I doubt she had any chance on the conservative radio or on the FNC. She always has been the product of the left. I can imagine Soros had opened a bank account for her many years ago, somewhere in Switzerland perhaps? UBS? (That would be sweet.)
Anyway, she’s not a conservative, not even a “conservative”, she’s a very cynical liberal b…tch. She protects the liberal MSM against relatively independent internet, almost the only place where conservatives can say a word. She hates conservative blogs and feels sorry for the MSM losing their “authoritaaah”. Why won’t we stop call her and people like her conservatives? There are many sweet names for them…
In brief: THESE PEOPLE DO NOT BETRAY CONSERVATISM, THEY ARE LOYAL TO LIBERALISM.
Mar 21, 2009 - 12:46 am 91. Blackwell:AST#88 and Shark Girl #86 and others that think newspapers are outmoded:
Every weekday I see people’s noses buried in the Wall Street Journal, the Finacial Times and scrappy little weekly papers, like the LA Weekly. Why?
Because they are packed with things people want to READ about and know they NEED to read about: much of it is dense reporting for smart people who want facts and not the opinionated blather the LA Times and New York Times equates with NEWS.
The little weekly papers like the LA weekly, reported that LA’s mayor spends 11% of his time on city business. They got his appointment calenders and analyzed them. A woman in LA named Jill Stewart reports better on the city than the entire LA Times. A blog caled Kayeonla.com focuses on city business and has stuff the TIMES would rather ignore.
The LA Times, meantime, is like the restaraunt that serves liver and sprouts in all of its dishes, has rude waiters and indifferent managers: it hectors its readers with calls for higher taxes (George Skelton), personal anecdotes focused on race (Sandy Banks) or other worthless stuff (someone named Joel Stein). (They have only two non-news writers worth reading: Megahn Daum and Steve Lopez). The remainder of the LA Times is ALL the News We Think you Ought to See”, and very little of what I want or need to read about.
A liberal dean at risk of losing a position at a law school? An avalanche of stories. An illegal alien having a tough time at UCLA? A sympathetic article. But tax protests? An analysis of the state budget (a real one, that for example deal with state employee pension debt, projected percentages of state income to be sued for employee epnsions, retirement and benefit policies)–forget it. A real hard hitting piece on the teacher’s unions? Ha! An in depth piece on the Department of Water and Power–the city’s most bloated agency? The LA Times has no one there that knows anything about the DWP.
The LA Times prints only “stories” that align with its “view.” When its compelled to print something about a non “view” story, its coverage seem to be given to reporters that know the view like Matea Gold.
Papers that provide facts, news and real analysis are doing just fine. Major newspapers would be doning fine too, if they told us the news and stoped telling us what to think.
Mar 22, 2009 - 12:09 pm 92. amf:Newspapers ruin is partially caused by political endorsments of candidates and by bias reporting. Next it will be tv Networks. I have stopped watching. They are not reporting, many of them cannot even conduct an unbiased interview. I can tell if they are in an attack mode before they open their mouths. Just watch their eyes and body language. People want the facts only not your opinion. The viewers are not stupid. They just don’t know how to do their jobs anymore.
Mar 22, 2009 - 7:03 pm 93. Rubicon:Lets face it, even the media must admit that when many of them report “the news” the stories are slanted to reflect a political opinion of the writer. Its no longer hard news, its news w/a view. And most know that view will reflect well on anything Obama. We are told, “give him a chance.” Why did these same people fail to give George Bush a chance. BTW, I am NO Bush fan. He blew it & his legacy is of his own making.
Mar 26, 2009 - 10:28 am 94. Pat J:You cannot go on “leaning” your words to one side or the other. If you will not openly proclaim your bias, then you are a propagandist, not a reporter. If you open your “news” report with a line that reveals your attitude or bias to or against those you are reporting about, then we have a deal. But if you hide your bias as actual news, you are a propagandist. Commentators reveal their bias’. Even though there are actually some Americans who go to them for news. How can Bill O’Reilly give news? He cannot! How can Colbert give news. He cannot! They are pundits or commentators & its their responsibility to begin & end their programs with admissions that they are not reporting news.
Much of the media has bought their own tombstone. They lied, & they got caught. Worse is there is more than what the public realizes. Worse is, some in the media have deliberately reported with the intention to convince, not report. They are propagandists.
Media cannot have protections, when the public realizes they are abusing the trust that has been given to them.
I want my small town paper, so long as it sticks to “news.” But, if any print, TV, radio, or other media tries to deliver news based on their political opinion, & especially not admit their bias, I want them to fail & fail hard!
Put aside the opportunity to bash Kathleen parker and Ms. Meister makes some excellent points. Mainly how blogs serve as an opportunity for people to add comments outside of the usual “letters to the editor” avenues. Bloggers may exhibit bias but that’s just part of it. It’s commentary, not necessariliy jornalism.
Incidently, newspaper readership is going to continue to plunge since everything is going broadband. Newspapers can either adapt to this or die. Same thing with radio.
Mar 27, 2009 - 11:37 am