I would love to buy into Smails's "conservatives are underrepresented in the media" whine, but every time I turn on my fucking TV, there's another one spouting inane bullshit like "conservatives are underrepresented in the media."
@Mediahohoho: Listened to AM radio lately? I tell you, the right wing can hardly get a word in edgewise. When, oh when will they ever receive equal time?
@saintjim: Let's see...AM radio, clear channel radio and TV, Fox, Fox News, ABC news (editorial director is Bush's former speechwriter), 80% of local newspapers (at least). It's always been an absurd claim.
I think it’s high time Harold Koh and John Yoo had a cage match. Korean-American legal scholars, one Republican, the other Democrat, both having served at the highest levels, both prestigious professors, West Coast vs. East Coast, fighting to the death—the tickets would sell themselves.
@televisionarie: Probably, but there are subscribers--conservative subscribers--in the hinterland around Philadelphia. I know, because i'm related to some, no doubt this will play well out beyond where Starbucks fears to tread, deep into Wa-Wa territory.
Yes, hiring conservative writers, who present a perspective typically underrepresented in media, is a recipe for disaster. Just see the failures of Fox News and the NY Post.
Disagree with their views, hate them personally, but don't doubt the fact that there is demand out there for their opinions.
@Hamilton Nolan: No, but not because I don't believe what I said. I don't want to bet because newspapers are a terrible business. The failure of the Inquirer will have less to do with the opinions that it offers than with the simple fact that it's a miserable time to be a newspaper.
@TheHonJudgeSmails: They couldn't find any conservatives with more credibility than known scumbag John fucking Yoo?! If employing someone whose only legacy was bending over backwards to create flimsly legal justifications for torture, I'm going to say yes, hiring "conservatives" like Yoo is a recipe for disaster.
@flossy: Ah, but there is no conservative who would have any cred with a more liberal audience. But this is playing to the choir, and to the Neoconned tinfoil hat brigade, these two are practically Delphic in their wisdom and perspicacity.
@TheHonJudgeSmails: Your statement implies that these people are merely "conservatives", as opposed to "frothing-at-the-mouth-assholes". To call them "conservatives" is an insult to conservatives.
Google any of these titles and you will see why the media as we know it is dying. I realize that most of these aren't about papers, but it is a commentary of how journalism has decided on a slow suicide.
The Fourth Estate should have no other agenda than reporting the Veritas.
Now, throw in a recession and one of the first things that people will jettison is their partially accurate newspapers.
Idiot. The reason newspapers are dying is because the customer value of an online reader is significantly lower than that of a paper reader. People are still reading content from these 'dying media companies'... for free.
@Wonderland: Idiot? I don't think that our comments represent mutually exclusive points of view. Mine was that if the newspapers offered something of value (i.e. the truth) that you couldnt get on line, then they might not be sloughing off customers at such a high rate.
The Wall Street Journal is not in nearly as much trouble as other national papers, because they don't give away their content for free AND they don't have a political agenda.
This is the first time I've ever been called an "idiot" for suggesting that the media report the truth. How novel.
The WSJ doesn't have an agenda? Meh. EVERY SINGLE newspaper has a central viewpoint or philosophy at its core. WSJ examines the world through the lens of Wall Street. (At least it's news coverage does. It's ope-ed page is much more ideological and D.C.-centric.)
Every single publication has its biases and the WSJ is no different.
05/12/09
The snake eating itself; what a fucking bore.
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
Disagree with their views, hate them personally, but don't doubt the fact that there is demand out there for their opinions.
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
02/23/09
02/23/09
02/23/09
Reuters Photo Fraud.
Newsweek Retracts Guantanamo Abuse Story.
Dan Rather Bush Memo.
Matthews Olbermann Off Election Coverage.
Google any of these titles and you will see why the media as we know it is dying. I realize that most of these aren't about papers, but it is a commentary of how journalism has decided on a slow suicide.
The Fourth Estate should have no other agenda than reporting the Veritas.
Now, throw in a recession and one of the first things that people will jettison is their partially accurate newspapers.
02/23/09
Idiot. The reason newspapers are dying is because the customer value of an online reader is significantly lower than that of a paper reader. People are still reading content from these 'dying media companies'... for free.
02/23/09
The Wall Street Journal is not in nearly as much trouble as other national papers, because they don't give away their content for free AND they don't have a political agenda.
This is the first time I've ever been called an "idiot" for suggesting that the media report the truth. How novel.
02/23/09
This might be the stupidest thing I've ever read. I want my money back!
02/23/09
The WSJ doesn't have an agenda? Meh. EVERY SINGLE newspaper has a central viewpoint or philosophy at its core. WSJ examines the world through the lens of Wall Street. (At least it's news coverage does. It's ope-ed page is much more ideological and D.C.-centric.)
Every single publication has its biases and the WSJ is no different.
02/23/09
Keep searching, man. The "Veritas" is out there.