Comments on: Worse Than Arianna Huffington

By: Laree

Laree — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:43:34 +0000

worse than Huffington or worse than the standard Huffington set? If Huffington needs to be the low water mark we measure all others so be it who am I to dissent

By: Micky 2

Micky 2 — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:09:41 +0000

Jeez, as much as I cant stand Arianna I never thought someone could be more arrogant and proud of it.
I predict that whithin ten years newspapers will be a novelty, like 8 tracks, as everything will be accesible thru more modern and compact technology.
laptops will be a dime a dozen and info will be so abundant it will only be a matter of sorting it by credibilty standards.
The more we get the moguls out of the way that dictate what content there should be ( Soros, Huffington,etc..) and dismatle the love connection between liberals and the media the more truth we’ll be exposed to.

By: Eagle 6

Eagle 6 — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 02:28:08 +0000

Gosh, I’m not even drunk and can’t seem to maintain a train of thought… without government intervention most people will either gravitate to what they already believe or have unique Ford moments which often lead to acting like Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors who don’t have an enemy!!

By: Eagle 6

Eagle 6 — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 02:23:20 +0000

JMJ, One of the reasons I have such a hard time blasting NYTs or other info sources is the intellectual dishonesty sometimes used to counter what some right wingers consider unfair reporter. To wit, my father-in-law, bless his heart, forwarded a message a few days ago that contained just enough specific facts to make his message credible: in a nutshell, the message was that the Obama administration had just approved $20.3 M to support Hamas refugees who had lost their homes and were going to re-locate thousands of homeless American hating Palestinians to the US. The truth was enough to make me get fired up – (i.e. carving out $20.3M to give to Palestinians) because as much as I disagree with giving out free money, if we are going to do it anyway, let’s keep it within the family. As it is, we neutered any good argument we might have had about the $20.3M because we attributed it to a falsehood rather than an egregious truth… which brings us back to Eric and JMJ’s arguments – without government intervention, the public will do two basic things – gravitate to sources they want to believe, credible or not (CNN vs FOX; Washington Post vs Washington Times; Tygrrr Express vs Moveon.org…et al) is it no surprise that Fox reports 98% of the populace agree with enhanced coercion, and the same survey might net 90% disagree with it from another source? Americans are great people – they are like Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors – if there isn’t an enemy in front of them, they will gladly kick the devil out of each other…

By: Jersey McJones

Jersey McJones — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:50:07 +0000

Oh, I forgot: the papers most all own up to those mistakes … and what is or isn’t a “mistake” is often a subjective opinion. I for one am grateful for some of the stories you guys say are mistakes or worse.

JMJ

By: Jersey McJones

Jersey McJones — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:47:52 +0000

Dan and Eagle have a fair and valid point – people pay for what they want only if they have to. With the advent of free internet media, newspapers are hard-pressed for readers. But it goes on. As Eagle said, advertisers go to the readers, and with readership down, the ads have gone away. What you guys leave out, though, is the classifieds – a huge portion of revenue, and that’s way down because of free classifieds like Craigslist, Monster, Career Builder, AllRetailJobs, personals sites, Yellowpages.com, as well as state-run job boards like One Stop Workforce centers and such. So, there’s much more to this decline in revenue than just readership, though readership is still very significant in all this. Eagle is right, afterall – Americans have become morons who prefer stupid pictures and stupid stories over hard, important news. When I hear the complaints of the sheepy masses about the big papers, all I hear, “LA LA LA LA LA!!! I’m not listening! I want to be ignorant!” I hear, “Hey, look at this anecdote! See? This paper or that paper is a bunch of phonies and liars!” Just plain stupid nonsense. All papers make mistakes, let alone the goofballs like us on the web. but the papers most all own up to those mistakes, contrary to the belief of our good host. If only bloggers were so honest.

I guess what I’m saying is this: the decline of the American newspaper is a symptom of the decline of America.

JMJ

By: hauk

hauk — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:35:05 +0000

Awhile back, it became apparent that people were choosing to get their music online in a digital format called Mp3s. In the absence of a pay site where they could get a guarantee of quality, most people were using a site called Napster to download music illegally.

The Music Industry had two options. Create a platform where people could pay for a quality product at a decent price, or attempt to destroy this.

They attempted to destroy Napster.

Ultimately, all they achieved was to create a “Pirate Culture” -the people they attacked developed a victim complex, which lead to massive piracy on multi levels, and ultimately, when the Itunes platform did become available- the majority of people chose to continue downloading illegally.

The Music Industry recovered, to a certain extent, by reinventing themselves. They now focus on tours and major artist development, instead of churning out CD after CD.

Maybe Newspapers can do the same. Currently, I get the majority of my news from Cnn.com, Michaelsavage.com, and occasionally Time or Newsweeks websites. Plus whatever links pop up my way, and the present company, of course. We do not have a drought of information- and right now we don’t need the Newspapers to provide us with the news.

So how can they reinvent themselves before they create a “NewsPirate” Subculture?

By: Eagle 6

Eagle 6 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:04:43 +0000

When at West Point many years ago, we had to be able to cite at least 3 headlines from national and international news and recount sporting events daily…we were rather young to be doing analysis on these articles…the cost of papers should be directly proportionate to how much advertisements bring in…so astute newspaper leaders would tailor articles toward audience and those who advertise… with the red ink, something isn’t working. USA is doing ok because they use color and big words…not “big” in terms of catering to well educated people but big in terms of print…and they use color…and they appeal to emotions up front while not hiding these appeals in pseudo-intellectual babble… but neither they nor NYT have a funnies page because it would be redundant…

By: Dav Lev

Dav Lev — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:17:12 +0000

Unlike Eric, I don’t hate the New York Times. However, I’ll be damned if
I’m going to pay 2.00 for a daily.

Many decades ago, I worked for a company in the “Big Apple” and
admit to purchasing the paper to read on the subway. It was then
.25. So was a container of milk.

By the time I got to my work, I had read about half the paper.
On the way home, I read the other half. Then I wasn’t much into
sports, so I ignored the article about the Yankees.

I was younger (much), and very, very gullible.
I’ve grown up since then. I will read an article occasionally
on the Net (thanks guys), but purchase it daily….hell no.

As I tell friends and Internetters I meet online..if you don’t like
the NYTimes..don’t buy it. Same applies to Haaretz, a liberal-leftist
appeasement orietated Israeli paper, which blames Israel for everything
from Arab’s firing Kassams, to the continued capture of Shalit (over 3 years). It’s all Israel’s fault they say. If only Israel withdrew to the pre-67 borders, gave up Jerusalem and allowed 5m Muslims into it..the conflict
would end.

A friend told me several months ago, “I don’t buy the NYTimes
or the LA Times, both liberal rag sheets”. He said it all.

David Brooks is the only columnist I watch on TV (TV talk shows
most especially PBS-and the News Hour). I try and read his columns.

His problem however is he is a “moderate conservative”. He
adulates Obama, and his only criticism of him is he is reaching for
pie in the sky and cannot pay for it. He likes Obama’s smooth style,
and his easy, detached approach (duh). Personally I prefer Truman
or Nixon. Mr. Obama’s middle name should be nuance.

Only criticism?..David, where have you been?

David was in Israel recently..and had a colume about Israeli
brashness. (Has anyone ever told him that New Yorkers are far
more brash?) and they talk funny..with their dees, dos..get the point!

He wants the IDF to withdraw from the West Bank..I don’t.

Like others of his ilk, he is naive about the Muslim mentality.

He should have loudly condemned Obama for his retreat and defeat
foreign policies..complete with apologies for all our alleged (US) wrongs.

While all this is happening, the Arab-Muslim worlds are again raising
their oil and natural gas prices to soak the rest of us..

To top it off, Turkey and Syria have conducted joint military maneuvers (who are they to defend against-Turkey is part of NATO?).
The US under Gates and Bush are supplying Lebanon with advanced
state of the art weaponry..to supposedly give them some punch.
(Against whom, Hezbollah?).

So, NYTimes and David Brooks…come down from your high perches
and smell the air like the rest of us. You might be in for a shock.

By: Jersey McJones

Jersey McJones — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:03:10 +0000

Wow, talk about hate! Man, do you hate the NYT!

There’s plenty of room for the professional press and the new media. They are not mutally exclusive. in fact, if anything, the new media is quite dependent on the old one. Of course, we can blissfully dream of an ignorant world without a professional press to report on events around it, and it just may happen. And then we can all be nice and stupid. But if that press dies, truly dies, the future will be very bleak indeed. True, the press has failed many times, as has all the other estates, but it is a vital organ in the body politic. If it dies, the body dies. Bett watch what you wish for, conservatives, it may come stupidly and mortally true.

JMJ