A House Judiciary Committee hearing last week deteriorated into a press-bashing session in which “ideologues of the left and right made no effort to conceal their yearning for a day without journalists, when public officials would no longer be scrutinized,” wrote Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank. But as University of Pennsylvania law professor C. Edwin Baker told the committee, “the biggest correlator with less government corruption is newspaper readership: When people are reading newspapers, corruption goes down.” That’s why Thomas Jefferson famously said that if asked to choose between “a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- KSGolfnut on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
52 Comments
Sorry, patriotism won’t make me renew my subscription to the local liberal fish wrap.
The problem with newspapers of today is that have become opinion magazines, not distributors of news.
They are more akin to the royal town crier, complicit with the ideology of those who they back politically.
That being said, digesting the full review of a newspaper on a Sunday edition, draped with its temperature insulating powers after a good meal is still traditional.
Each layer of the newspaper becoming increasingly thinner, as family members extract their favorite sections, cartoons, fashion, travel, sales advertisement and the proverbial crossword puzzle.
Before the day of plastic sleeved newspapers, the collection drawer of rubber bands was a hallmark of middle America. In smaller towns, the curiously folded newspapers that were in the form of a triangular-folded square made throwing by newspaper boys an art form.
Newspaper also served other functions, as fish wrap, insulation and even the substance for plaster artists wanting to hold their composite statues together.
The gathering of the minds, at barber shops and domino parlors where the conversation started, “Did you read in the paper that…”.
In hotels and motels across America, the pinnacle of fine service not only included clean towels, but access to a newspaper. Nothing more soothing and environmentally adjusting than a freshly printed newspaper where one could find normalcy.
What would coffee shops be without newspapers? The furrowed brows of readers imbibing their favorite morning beverage and munching on breakfast. Digestion isn’t nearly as efficient without the rustle of paper pages being turned and adjusted.
As an archive, newspapers are king. Going back in history, reading historical print is worthy of high, scholarly activity. Using original print or on microfilm/fische, the news print reveals the character of a community along with its historical events.
Seeing who died or seeing what politician lied are stories staples of the American persona.
Of course, let’s not forget the ultimate in sacrifice, the sharing or even out right gift of a newspaper to a perfect stranger when we are done reading it. The recipient stands a glow at your generosity and passes on the good deed to others.
Functional and utilitarian, the newspaper is the legacy of the American mindset. It is irreplaceable.
The problem with newspaper readers of today is they think facts that disagree with their ideologies are evidence of a political agenda. That, and way too many of them react to buzz words and sentiment and can’t extract facts from prose. See above topic on education.
Stories have perspectives not opinions. Stories go through a fact verification process. Opinions remain on the editorial page which is a different department with different people. Some readers do get a different understanding of the same story based on their own bias.
The idelogues prefer their followers get their pre-digested news from FOX, or some other cable channel.
Or, it could be that the product that newspapers are selling isn’t what is wanted by the public. The reasons are legion – the long news cycle needed to produce a print edition, the lack of relevance to the reader’s daily lives, partisanship (real or imagined), and so on.
Jefferson’s quote is about newspapers because that was the most rapid news source of his day. He didn’t have some unnatural jones for papers, he just wanted to make sure that the public was informed of the happenings of the world. So trotting out that saying to defend a failing business model is pretty telling of a business that is out of touch with the modern world.
“The idelogues prefer their followers get their pre-digested news from FOX”
Strange, then newspapers should be flourishing with
those huge growing numbers of liberals buying newspaper print.
(snort, snort)
We know you never read one American Way. Your prose shows.
It’s not the newspapers job to scrutinize.
It’s job is to report the news. It is our job as citizens to scrutinize by applying our beliefs and ideals to the facts that are reported.
It’s not hard to figure out why newspapers are struggling across the country. When they stopped reporting the news and started reporting their opinion of the news, they shot themselves in the head execution style.
They never stopped reporting the news; it was cabel television which poisoned the well, Austrian. Newspaper reporters get fired every day for making mistakes on facts, television reporters get fired for poor ratings.
“cabel television” — Perhaps right. Ha, ha.
The oozing of television into the newsprint business and vice versa didn’t help either.
If 40 years in the business taught me one thing it is that for every American Way who thinks the Eagle is a liberal rag, there are an equal number of grousers who consider the Eagle a right-wing apologist.
Ya cain’t win. Dam**ed if you and Dam** if you don’t.
Totally depends on whose ox is gored that particular day.
Dennis
Did you say you were a journalist beber?
YellowdogLiberal
Posted April 27, 2009 at 10:31 am | Permalink
If 40 years in the business taught me one thing it is that for every American Way who thinks the Eagle is a liberal rag, there are an equal number of grousers who consider the Eagle a right-wing apologist.
——————————–
I thought I detected mold.
YellowdogLiberal
Posted April 27, 2009 at 10:31 am | Permalink
If 40 years in the business taught me one thing……
___________________
Another example of liberal bias in the newspaper business. Next you’ll be telling us that there’s a conservative arts college for journalism.
Sorta like what collects in the boondockers of a lifer Gyrene, huh?
Dennis
I learned long ago that having a good B.S. grinder doesn’t make you a superior human being. However, in high school, I could read 400 words per minute with 95 percent comprehension. The regular Joes could read 100 words per minute with 50 percent comprehension. That’s a fact. And yes I was a journalist, and after 20 years of being accused of writing things no sane person could ever glean from my copy, I started to wonder what the hell was the point. Then my father got ill, and I sat on the tractor for the next ten years.
The reason newspapers are failing has nothing to do with what they report. That’s not changed much, except for some cosmetic changes. The reason is that the Internet and the 500 cable channels are competing with them for advertising.
I happen to think that a newspaper with enough talent to meld its copy into a comprehensive narrative just might be able to pull readers back. Think of a serialized Dickens novel, except “the news” would be reported as a consistent narrative or “story.” I realize this idea is not full-formed, but if the news could be made into a story, people simply could not resist reading it. In other words, the entire paper should have a plot. The question every editor should be asking is “how does this bit of fact fit into the rest of the picture.”
Remember, when something happens in one place it causes something to happen somewhere else. After 20 years of reporting, I was just beginning to see how this could work for me. End of sermon.
In reality, I started on the bottom and stayed there. I enjoy telling people that joke today. Back then, it wasn’t so funny.
“If 40 years in the business taught me one thing”
Maybe that was true back when you rode covered wagons to get your story, but not so true anymore.
Newspapers which endorsed Obama for President clearly show bias on the liberal side. Blindly so in states which voted McCain. For instance, Anchorage Daily News Alaska’s top newspaper endorsed Democrat Barack Obama, yet the voters supported McCain (and Gov Palin) with 60% of the states vote.
Publications* Obama McCain
Daily newspapers 296 180
Weekly newspapers 111 32
College newspapers 78 2
Magazines and other 10 1
total 495 215
*Wikipedia
Personally, I want a newspaper to report the news and not endorse ANY candidate. Provide me the factual information so I can decide for myself which candidate to support.
Newspapers should be more like accountants: Record and report.
That said. Newspapers are like dinasours in the new internet/WIFI age. I get my news almost instantly and only find OLD news in the newspapers the next day. Further, there are ZERO investigative type reporting which MIGHT capture my interest.
Save the trees.
“investigative type reporting which MIGHT capture my interest.
Only if they investigated liberals.
Remember, folks, the idea that news should be “unbiased” is relatively new. There was a time not so long ago that various newspapers were routinely seen as either Republican or Democratic organs. Frankly, I wonder if newspapers shot themselves in the foot by buying the largely fanciful idea of “neutral” reporting; of course, there is in fact no such thing. There never was.
And disdain of reporters and newspapers is not new. The very Jefferson that Milbank so gleefully quotes had little regard for the newspapers of his day, just like politicians today. Jefferson simply recognized that for all their miriad faults, they were necessary to provide that watchdog on government.
And neither side wants an unscrutinized state; that is in fact the writer’s own ideology speaking, and his attempt to do his own ox goring. Whether in fact the media is doing any real scrutinzing is another matter. For the most part, the coverage of Obama leading up to his election was unabashedly fawning. The media’s coverage (or general lack) of the recent “tea party” events is also evidence of same; had that been rallies from the other side, the coverage would have been non-stop and largely supportive. Reporters by and large missed the point of the tea party protesters, because they don’t understand them and cannot relate to their point of view.
The MSM’s general left slant isn’t realistically in dispute, but it’s not the kind of ideological reporting that many on the right blame the media for; rather, it’s merely the general political/cultural views of those who tend to be reporters bleeding through their writing. All of us carry who we are as part of what we do; we cannot do otherwise. Neither can reporters, or editors. Reporters by and large like Obama, and I have no doubt voted overwhelmingly for him. That reality was reflected in their reporting, intentionally or not.
You really want to know about the reason for newspapers’ decline? Look at the post above. Is reporting a “poll” on elections in 2012 news? No. Is it reporting? No. It’s an attempt – and a poor one – at reading tea leaves. Newspapers, like any business, must serve their consumers, and provide a product that their consumers find useful and are willing to pay for. Newspapers, if they are to survive in this day and age, I think must do what they used to do: real reporting, and do it at the local level. The national AP feed can be gotten on line. A local newspaper must provide what on-line cannot do: local, investigative reporting. Newspspers used to do that. They don’t it much anymore. They became, instead, the local feed for the AP newswire; largely because it was cheaper. That won’t cut it anymore.
Newspapers will have to adapt to the new technological age. The only thing in this world really permanent is change; it has always been so. If newspapers can’t adapt and serve their readers, perhaps they should die.
Also, to get your advertisers back, work with Google or another search engine. Whenever I look for a product on the internet I get e-mails and advertisements the next day with prices and deals on those same products. Spotting scopes or fishing waders for example, but I never get an offer from a local merchant, where I might be able to actually look at the product before I buy it. The Eagle could do that, too, sending specialized messages to internet users or users of its sites and steering them to local merchants who have the same products.
With enough data, the tech probably exists right now to print and send specialized ads right to your print subscribers. In other words, sell them what they want.
Whenever I look for a product on the internet I get e-mails and advertisements the next day with prices and deals on those same products.
Turn your cookies off on your browser, and I think you can avoid most of that crap clogging up your in-box. Just FYI.
And by and large, I agree with your position, beber. You and I are saying much the same thing; either newspapers adapt to the new reality, or they die. It has always been so.
You could even send them the news they want; that’s what the internet does. Haven’t I read about plateless presses?
It would be refreshing if the Eagle did investigative reporting on George Tiller. Then perhaps we could get the full story and not just hype from the pro-abort crowd and contrary hype from the pro-life crowd. The pro-life crowd has done investigative reporting, but many of us would like the Eagle to do the same and see if the information can be verified.
beber
Posted April 27, 2009 at 11:46 am | Permalink
However, in high school, I could read 400 words per minute with 95 percent comprehension. The regular Joes could read 100 words per minute with 50 percent comprehension. That’s a fact.
__________________
Based on what I’ve read from you on this blog, I would say you are autisic kinda like “Rain Man”. I bet you buy all your clothes from K-mart and always watch $10,000 pyramid too. “Who’s on first” beber?
“The Eagle could do that, too, sending specialized messages to internet users or users of its sites and steering them to local merchants who have the same products.”
And I’ll block them every time. I disallow all cookies, whenever possible. To protect our privacy, we should all be anonymous surfing.
I want to see it if I’m looking to buy.
American_Way
Posted April 27, 2009 at 6:21 am | Permalink
Sorry, patriotism won’t make me renew my subscription to the local liberal fish wrap.
–
But yet you insist on being online 24/7 on this ‘local liberal fish wrap’ to spread your particular brand of patriotism.
Perhaps you are just a true Republican, why buy the newspaper when you can read it for free online?
Typical Republican – money grabbing, money hungry, sanctimonius, pontificating know-it-all?
Two in a row; and a window into the conservative mind. You’re looking for waders, but you don’t want to see wader ads. You don’t want cookies either. I suppose you like to type in the passwords every time. But you’re right to be afraid. All information is fearsome. Ah, conservatism. It’s like Alheimers by choice.
Al Heimer is a friend of mine.
Nah! I get all my clothing from Wal-mart, except for my special two-pocket shirts. With velcro flaps.
beber
Posted April 27, 2009 at 11:56 am | Permalink
“investigative type reporting which MIGHT capture my interest.
Only if they investigated liberals
–
Conservative Republicans don’t need to be investigated by newspapers – they seem to get their faces plastered everywhere on television with their latest mistress, tapping their shoe in public men’s restrooms, some crying Religious Right preacher that got caught with a gay prostitute with drugs, etc.
GOP the party of family values – yeah, right – when lipsticked pigs start to fly.
All good suggestions and I really like Berber’s idea about advertising.
The industry has been flailing around for the past 15 or so years. It has no idea what has hit it in the head, and has no idea what to do. Neither to I. Wish I did. I could be a multi-millionaire by the end of the week if I could come up with WHAT TO DO. When a publication as important as the Christian Science Monitor has to quit printing and the Wall Street Journal has to suffer the indignity of Rupert Murdock because the family that owned it would rather take the money and run than run a respected publication, well, something definitely stinks in the state of Denmark.
Wall Street demanding profit margins of 20 percent and other stupid financial decisions didn’t help. It is more than American Way calling it fish wrap; people have called it that for years. No publication will ever satisfy him in the long run. Someday, I hope, someone will figure out how the industry will survive. I know it won’t be me. But I do know I’ll miss the daily paper.
Dennis
If I can find reputable local reporting on the internet, and advisors on what local merchants have for sale at what price, I wouldn’t mind the demise of my old industry. GAWD did I love it at one time, but times change. We always forget that newspapers, even when they’re bad, are a hell of a lot better than nothing.
“the biggest correlator with less government corruption is newspaper readership: When people are reading newspapers, corruption goes down.”
Proof please?
What a load of crap.
It’s not the newspapers job to scrutinize.
It’s job is to report the news. It is our job as citizens to scrutinize by applying our beliefs and ideals to the facts that are reported.
I disagree with that, few citizens actually have the time or to be frank the interest to scrutinize.
One of the greatest downfalls for the newspapers is that they have the time to scrutinize while the other medias have the race to break the news first.
A newspaper has the space and the time to get the information in an orderly manner i.e. to scrutinize.
Going back in history and the build-up to the invasion, two reporters for the main Knight/Ritter news organization which BTW owned the WE at the time. Questioned the facts and assertions of the Bush Administration’s build-up for the invasion. And found several incidences where the facts did not support the assertions. Yet as with our hometown paper many ignored and glossed over the scrutinizing.
The media and that includes News Papers choose the news to report based on public opinion rather then to report the news and to scrutinize the reported information. So where was the citizens to go?
Beliefs and ideals, otherwise to say to round the news to only that which we choose to believes.
To be as the first informed cancer patent, disbelief and denial of the truths of the inquiry.
Just thought I should mention that the subject of this thread relies on two stacked misreprentations. T
The first is the Post’s headline, “In Congress, no love for newspapers,” and Dana Milbank’s predictably faux-fair spin (the man is no James Risen). In fact, only the right-wing congresscritters (predictably–the see the first post) were expressing disdain for newspapers. John Conyers made some critical comments about bailing out newspapers, and one can take issue with that, but his only “press” criticism was aimed at the dishonest electronic propaganda of Faux News.
(As as inside, only liar and imbeciles really believe the press has a liberal bias. Too much of what passes for journalism these day is vapid, oversimplified McNews, news bytes (sic) for a public on the run. Good journalism–what’s left of it–tends to be skeptical of power, which is then re-interpreted as “liberal”). Of course one finds biases, and good journalism can have a bias of various sorts, so long as it’s being disingenuous in its presentation of the facts.
The second mispresentation comes from the Eagle’s reworking of the headline: “Ideologues don’t like newspapers.” Fair enough, but where are theese supposed newspaper-bashing ideologues of the Left? Seriously, I’ve never heard of such people.
I suppose you can find such folks if you look hard enough, but in fact the huge organized newspaper-bashing contigent is firmly on the Right.
The Left, by contrast, doesn’t want newspapers to go away. They just want the newspapers (and other media) to do their jobs better.
And, as I’ve repeatedly noted, a civilized society requires diligent primary news-gatherers.
Sorry if I’m not presenting solutions today. I will in the future.
I shouldn’t post when I’m in a huge hurry. . .ciao!
Perhaps you are just a true Republican, why buy the newspaper when you can read it for free online?
__________
That’s because Republicans pay most the taxes so the democrats can have their free food stamps, housing, health care and other entitlements.
Don, you were one of the regular Joes, weren’t you?
beber, do “regular Joes” get academic scholarships and score in the plus 90 percentile on the ACT?
beber, you were reading those “Dick and Jane” books right?
“beber, do “regular Joes” get academic scholarships and score in the plus 90 percentile on the ACT?”
Well, I’ll just assume you are referring to yourself Donn, but how did you translate such a fine mind and academic record into be another dumb lie spouting Con? It must have taken a lot of booze.
Tell me, are you afraid of cookies, too?
Donnie Boy,
“…do “regular Joes” get academic scholarships and score in the plus 90 percentile on the ACT?”
Claiming to be educated is not the same thing as claiming intelligence, although in your case the question’s moot; you show no signs of either.
Beeb,
From what I’ve seen here, I’d say anything with chocolate chips scares the bejesus out of him.
#
donndublin
Posted April 27, 2009 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Don’t worry beber and Jed. I was liberal once before I matured but now that I’ve lived life independent of my parents and realized I don’t need government to wipe my a ss, I changed my political views. You will too if you would only grow up.
Donnie Boy,
I have no problem with conservatives as long as they’re intelligently conservative. Unfortunately most of ‘em are like you; running around like beheaded barnfowl, firing potshots at anything they can’t see, and usually ending up in the stewpot.
Happy Hot Water!
I lue of the conversation going on in here, I’d think it is fair to say that those who sit here and argue over party talking points are starting to become the minority in this country.
We can only hope.