#26 2008-07-25 22:59:33

jesusluvspegging wrote:

I have never known newspapers (with the exceptions of NYT and WSJ) to be other than mediums for the conveyance of department store advertisements and mild cultural propaganda.  They're useful for lining the bottom of the snake-feeding tank, and that's really about it.

Well, there's obviously no arguing with you. So, phphthththbthbthb!

Offline

 

#27 2008-07-25 23:11:39

I don't debate that at one time newspapers were a reliable source of news where reporters took their responsibilities as the fourth estate seriously.

That time was before I was born, though.

Offline

 

#28 2008-07-25 23:18:17

jesusluvspegging wrote:

I don't debate that at one time newspapers were a reliable source of news where reporters took their responsibilities as the fourth estate seriously.

That time was before I was born, though.

Journalism.

Offline

 

#30 2008-07-26 00:35:36

I'd like to think that journalists are these heroic figures that challenge the 'man', selflessly dig into the dirt that is humanity, and stand up for the little guy.  And indeed there may have been some of them, and perhaps there are a few yet still among us.  But William Randolph, Rupert, Ted, Barry and rest of their lot have had their way with us, and the media and the public got a nice, long, and not-particularly-enjoyable-thank-you-very-much fucking by them.  Now the media is exists as nothing but a conduit for slimy spin doctors and tired pitchmen. 

The civilization is dead.  Long live the civilization.

Last edited by whosasailorthen (2008-07-26 00:38:09)

Offline

 

#31 2008-07-26 00:42:08

jesusluvspegging wrote:

choad wrote:

In council and court rooms across the country, reporters had your back and the suits in the boardroom could fuck themselves if they didn't like it. The were working stiffs who gave a shit.

Yeah, and at some point they STOPPED, and now the papers are dying.  They brought it on themselves.

Yeah - after they all bought each other.  Once we devolved to a single newspaper per city they had signed their own death note.

Offline

 

#32 2008-07-26 07:23:40

sofaking wrote:

And Choad forgets he is the New and Improved Ultimate Supreme Ruler of the creepiest corner of the awful new medium where we publish the ugliest truths possible.

He's still a newsman.

No, not for 20 years. News writing for me was a disipline, a way of deconstructing a subject so I could understand it, or a way of teaching myself to teach myself because I couldn't afford school. The pay uniformily sucked, the hours were awful and the fear of showing my face in public after stirring a cauldren of shit always huge; exhilarating, nonstop psychodrama, too. Suck it, bitchs and deal!

There's an inscription in the lobby of the Baltimore Sun that reads, “It is really the life of kings. - HL Menken”

The net is a unsatisfying substitute.

Last edited by choad (2008-07-26 07:24:35)

Online

 

#33 2008-07-26 07:31:19

Emmeran wrote:

Yeah - after they all bought each other.  Once we devolved to a single newspaper per city they had signed their own death note.

Yup, that was the wooden stake through its heart.

Online

 

#34 2008-07-26 08:23:42

I have a feeling that what we're eventually going to see is the complete separation between the news gathering and news distribution industries.  There is still demand out there for more or less "official" news agencies, someone you can generally trust and who actually feels embarrassed when they fuck up, but tying it to a sinking, increasingly anachronistic distribution medium is exacerbating the problem.

Then again, I could just be talking out of my ass.  It happens a lot.

Offline

 

#35 2008-07-26 08:40:12

choad wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Yeah - after they all bought each other.  Once we devolved to a single newspaper per city they had signed their own death note.

Yup, that was the wooden stake through its heart.

So tell me, Old Farts, what was it like it the days before the one-newspaper-per-town state of affairs?  I am honestly interested. 

It's long been observed that the monopoly, which is what a relatively free market system tends to devolve into, is good for the business but TERRIBLE for the consumer.  I would love to have dueling newspapers fightin' it out.  I'd subscribe to both of them, regardless of which way they spun, and I don't BELIEVE in subscribing to newspapers.

Offline

 

#36 2008-07-26 09:39:23

jesusluvspegging wrote:

So tell me, Old Farts, what was it like it the days before the one-newspaper-per-town state of affairs?  I am honestly interested.

Fun.

Kind of like the next link every day of the year, minus the coarse language and legal threats.

http://warehamobserver.com/viewtopic.php?id=4492

Online

 

#37 2008-07-26 14:40:10

San Francisco is, notably, moving back into multiple newspaper territory but I'm saying this with a bright bold asterisk at the end of "multiple". It has two dailies - the Chronicle, and the Examiner (which has undergone several rather odd permutations over the last decade) and in the past couple of years, two additional, very small dailies have also appeared on the scene: the City Star, and the Daily News.

The Examiner is distributed gratis, as are the Star and Daily News. Like the Examiner, both of the smaller papers are tabloids with a very strong local focus. Interestingly, with this rise of small papers distributed for free, the Chron just raised its price from 50 cents per issue to 75 cents.

There are several Chinese language dailies, as well, that cover both local and national news, but not much in the way of Spanish-language dailies. We also have two alternative weeklies which have been in engaged in a nasty battle with one another for a number of years. One, the Bay Guardian is locally owned, while the other, the San Francisco Weekly, is owned by Village Media which owns the Village Voice.

Offline

 

#38 2008-07-26 18:34:48

jesusluvspegging wrote:

choad wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Yeah - after they all bought each other.  Once we devolved to a single newspaper per city they had signed their own death note.

Yup, that was the wooden stake through its heart.

So tell me, Old Farts, what was it like it the days before the one-newspaper-per-town state of affairs?  I am honestly interested. 

It's long been observed that the monopoly, which is what a relatively free market system tends to devolve into, is good for the business but TERRIBLE for the consumer.  I would love to have dueling newspapers fightin' it out.  I'd subscribe to both of them, regardless of which way they spun, and I don't BELIEVE in subscribing to newspapers.

We actually still do OK here, I read the LA Times, the OC Register and the Long Beach Press Telegram.  The Press-Telegram at least covers some local events, you can actually find out about things that effect you directly instead of reading about some child getting ass-raped by her parole officer 3,000 miles away.

Offline

 

#39 2008-08-05 11:27:16

I doubt if any of the following will come as a revelation; but here, for what it's worth:

Musings of an 18-year newspaper veteran

Offline

 

#40 2008-08-05 12:17:38

Thanks, George. I almost posted this yesterday but figured why beat a dead horse?

Then again, why the fuck not? The mega-chain owner of one of our local papers lost 98% of its market value in the last 18 months according to Sunday's NYTimes...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/busin … apers.html

Last edited by choad (2008-08-05 12:18:25)

Online

 

#42 2008-08-22 08:38:10

as one suitably crotchety industry veteran tells us

Dude!  You got quoted!

Offline

 

#43 2008-08-22 08:59:10

Scotty wrote:

as one suitably crotchety industry veteran tells us

Dude!  You got quoted!

The grim truth is that business renders most of its veterans cynical, crotchety and unemployable in any other trade. Soldiers and cops are face much the same, though lord knows those jobs are not in short supply.

Online

 

#44 2008-08-22 10:21:54

choad wrote:

veterans cynical, crotchety and unemployable in any other trade

Fucking a bubba.

Offline

 

#46 2009-01-06 21:35:11

choad wrote:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200901/new-york-times

The venerable NYT out of business by May? Somehow, I doubt it'll happen. The WSJ will already suffer for who bought it most recently.

Offline

 

#47 2009-01-07 00:15:29

The Christian Science Monitor is retiring its print version in the spring and going completely digital. Just sayin'...

Offline

 

#49 2009-01-21 21:21:15

Look - we need print version of something.  Laptops on the shitter are just lame.

Offline

 

#50 2009-01-21 21:43:30

Emmeran wrote:

Look - we need print version of something.  Laptops on the shitter are just lame.

The New Yorker is my only subscription, a gift from Frank Thorne, and the choad throne is where I read that link. Here, want a whiff?

Online

 

Board footer

high-street.org