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.

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.

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.

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.

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.