Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Debra J. Saunders :: Townhall.com Columnist
Diary of a Mad Columnist
by Debra J. Saunders
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Not for the first time, The Chronicle is offering buyouts to a large number of workers -- at least 125 people for a paper that employs around 1,680 souls. Other industries have been through this drill, too. Longtime staff members weigh whether they can keep careers in an ailing, perhaps dying, industry.

I've seen some excellent professionals walk out these doors. It's heartbreaking, even though we don't yet now how many staff reductions might affect the gathering of news.

Now I gird myself for the next wave of woe -- as radio talk show hosts and other critics crow, as they do whenever newspapers buy out workers or suffer sharp circulation declines. And there will be e-mails from fans of my column, who are exultant at the decline of newspapers. Do they understand that if this keeps up, then I may not be around to write the columns they like, not to mention respond to their e-mails?

Apparently not, as many volunteer the information that they no longer buy a newspaper -- and are proud of that fact.

Conservatives like to think that newspapers are hurting because the liberal views they present have driven away readers. They aren't aware of liberals who believe newspapers are hurting because the news media are too corporate or too conservative. And then there's the laptop generation, whose members believe newspapers deserve to fail because they are, well, dinosaurs, in a technologically driven world. And didn't CDs give way to iPods? Why not dispense with paper editions -- they chime -- and publish online only? A brilliant idea, if you're looking for an even faster way for papers to lose money and shrink further. Online advertising revenues, while growing, still are but a fraction of print advertising revenues, even today.

Paperless is great -- if you want a two-story front page that doesn't break news, but only follows it. If America goes on a diet of free news only, eventually readers will get what they paid for -- nothing.

Sure, newspaper publishers haven't helped by giving away their product online -- except in their defense, to not do so is to hand the online market (and its revenue) to a rival with a robust Internet presence. But no news medium that depends on ad revenues to sustain its newsgathering efforts can compete with free ads.

The industry's problems, of course, lend credibility to the views of people who gleefully root for newspapers to fail. I've met smart people who vote who happily announce that they are too busy to read a newspaper. The problem is, they don't know what they don't know.

Some believe that if newspapers go under, then the Internet will provide.

In the case of conservatives, they often don't notice that those right-leaning sites, which they visit daily, provide them with fodder by linking to stories reported and written by newspaper reporters. While they are trashing newspapers, they're reading newspaper stories and citing them to bolster their arguments. They may not notice if, over time, as newspapers downsize and even close, websites will be linking to fewer reliable news reports.

And if they don't buy a paper, they won't see that a media, which at times got too rough with President Bush and the Republican Congress, can be just as tough on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. And when you only get your news from co-believers, as many of the left and right try to do, you miss things you need to know.

Conservatives rooting for newspapers' demise should be careful what they wish for. Yes, fewer reporters mean fewer biased stories about lesbian immigrants fighting an unsympathetic establishment. But there also won't be as many stories about sanctuary city policies gone bad, the latest zany law out of San Francisco City Hall or the growing bite that public employee pension systems are taking out of city and county services. They don't understand that Fox News and talk radio aren't going to report on stories that require local beat reporting and time-consuming and expensive investigation.

And there won't be as many nonideological stories -- about crimes or zoning or state spending -- until what was once a solvable problem festers, unreported, into a front-page disaster.

By then, there may not be a front page.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Debra Saunders' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Rooting for Newspaper and TV demise
It is good to rooting for the demise of NY Times, Washington Post, National Review, American Spectator all whose time has passed.

Only fogies who listen to NBC, FOX, read newpaper drivel (no information).

Newspapers in the US provide no real information. The author does not want the audience to be aware of a new awakening that is taken place.

No it is not the old fogie (EIB) Network - Rush Limbaugh or Katie Couric.

The new form of medium is internet talk radio (real media/mp3 restreams). Who dominates this medium?

1) Alex Jones - infowars.com
2) Jim Puplava - financialsense.com
3) Peter Schiff - europac.net
4) Jack Blood - gcnlive.com
5) HoweStreet.com

Oh what happened to Larry Kudlow, El-Rushbo, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham? They got hung out to dry with the new technology.

Good bye conventional talk radio, TV, and newspapers....

An alexa.com search on the traffic rankings displays the whole picture. Alex Jones on 2 of his websites beats Rush Limbaugh. Not bad for a guy who started out on his own and did not have a handout from "BUSH" or some scrub "NEO-CON".

Eat your shorts RUSH LIMBAUGH, ALEX JONES is eating you up on the internet not just in the US, but worldwide.

....

What newspaper will not report
You Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TYQsCx3jcU&feature=related

....

Saunders if Wrong
She will have a job if she is good at what she does. The newspapers and television news have had it their way for a long time and, frankly, by the time newspapers are released, they are already a day old. People want news now and it's available now.

Saunders will have a job because she is a good reporter. She will be picked up by online news sources (like Townhall!) so what's the gripe?

For years, in San Francisco, we have been tortured with liberal left wing views of the world. Maybe that's because of the audience. But just because it's left doesn't make it right or true. And a trend we have been noticing in the news is this future news... The use of "probably will result in" and "could indicate" among other phrases makes them appear to be Kreskin. And whether it comes true or not, it is reported as news and accepted as the truth.

Another annoying trend has been for news sources to start doing polls to create news stories. Who cares if Bush has a 30+ percent popularity rating or that congress's numbers are lower than his? Just because a majority of people say the same thing is NOT news. It's called mob rule!

I for one will not miss the Chronicle or Phil Bronstein. The only paper we buy is the Sunday edition... for the open house ads and the pink section, all things we can find on the Internet.

Just because you say it...
...doesn't make it so. Sam, you are obviously a left-wing nut case. Rush Limbaugh's audience is bigger than ever. Sean Hannity is growing by leaps and bounds. Not sure what you're reading, but it's probably the Huffington Post.

Sam
Beats him how? Web site "hits" or actual "listeners"? does Jones keep em for 3 hours or 3 minutes? As far as "worldwide" is concerned I don't give a sheite for what a French Phaggot, a "Green is the new Red" Krout, a Russian serf or a Sandnazi think about anything. Even less for anybody below the equator. Anymore than I care about what my garbage pail thinks. Anybody good got here long ago. The rest is leavings. I never heard of these shmucks, when Rush, or Sean or Coulter start mentioning them I might give them some attention. As to the MP3 generation, sheite kid, my generation did it all and some of us got over it. You're still just a big a fool as any underthirty adolescent is. You still think you know stuff you don't, you still think you're way ahead of your elders and betters when you are not. Younger generations are a dime a dozen kid, some few of you will make the survival cut to become the older generation. You may or may not be among them. You still got nuttin.

the big mick

AS far as Saunders is concerned
Spoken like a true Commiequeer, which is a shame. "People ought to buy what I want to sell and if they don't they are not only stupid they are losing out." So, we supposed to subsidize the Queericle so Saunders doesn't lose her job?
Should we be subsidizing buggy whip makers?
If people want what she sells she'll sell it.
The problem with Newspapers is the same problem with The Omedia, they want to be "The 4th Estate" some kind of power broker or moralconscience to the nation rather than just give the facts! In depth stories with what? Leads that sound like Romance Novels? "Debra, a pert, and perky redhead, is a struggling mom of two, fighting to make ends meet in the heart of the cold,cold city." God, I haven't read anybody that could WRITE either in print or the AP for YEARS!
It's your OWN FAULT, DEBRA! America needs Tom Paines, what we got is Opra Winfrees. When Tom shows up, he'll make money.

the big mick

News papers
I am still alive (at 75) and still your best fan in Bowdon, Georgia. I quite agree with your assesment of newspapers. We have the Atlanta Journal which I used to deliver at 50 cents a week when I was a kid. It has deteroiated somewhat and has a horrible editorial editor. However it still provides the news and I read it along with the local county paper. I think we need the news papers. I write letters, which are never printed, but they might be read, railing against the unfair editorials. However the news seems fairly subjective except more stuff on Democrats than Republicans it covered unless it is bad then less is covered on Dems than Republicans. So be it, I will still subscribe. Caught you on O'Reilly. You are cute.

Dying newspapers
No one can trust the newspapers any longer because they don't report the news, they expliot the news. All have a liberal HATE AMERICA agenda. Most are openly campaigning for Obama. I depend on Fox news for fair and balanced information.

Does anyone know what they do not know?
I am sure that I don't know what I don't know Ms. Saunders, but I do know that I felt a strong degree of glee reading your article. The thought of people in your industry being shown the door is very satisfying. Slightly less satisfying than the news of continued declines in newspaper circulations.








History lesson
Once upon a time, buggy whips were useful implements and many people made an honest living making and selling them. With the advent of the horseless carrige, demand for them plummeted, putting many out of jobs. Off topic, that's one example of change you can believe in. On point, newspapers are facing a new market paradigm. For decades they had no competition at all, but along came radio then TV offering more current news, but lacking permanence and reflective analysis. Recently, cable news networks and the internet have offered serious competition for which the dead tree editors and publishers have been unable to effectively counter. There are good and bad aspects to the troubles newspapers are experiencing. On the good side, the new, mostly interactive media bombard us with a cacophany of ideas and opinions, busting the hegemony of thought that people like the Schultzbergers had foisted upon us for years. On the downside, the small to medium size town local newspaper provided home town news that was not available elswhere in a permanent form that could be passed around, saved, and used to wrap garbage and line bird cages. Try that with your online news.

Mea Culpa
I said "competition for which the dead tree....". Eliminate the word "for". Sorry.

I used to love the paper
I used to read a newspaper every day (when not at sea) for over twenty five years of my life. But I began to feel as if I might as well be donating money directly to the DNC, so I quit cold-turkey in 2001.

I enjoy opposing viewpoints. Camille Paglia is one of my favorite cultural/political columnists.

But I at least want to see that my viewpoints are acknowledged as valid, even if you disagree. Today's papers too often imply that if you don't agree with the liberal perspective, you're an ignorant bigot.

For example, if you think that all Americans should have the exact same constitutional rights, and don't support special categories i.e. "gay" rights, "hate" crimes laws, etc. the paper asserts you are a hateful ignorant redneck. Please...what an insult to the intelligence of their readers.

Papers should replace some of their liberal staff (about 95-98% of their workforce) with some republicans and libertarians. If they would, they might be able to differentiate themselves from competitors.

A little balance couldn't hurt. Could it?

I really miss my morning paper. But I just can't financially support such a one-sided party rag.

We'll need newspapers a while longer
Thanks, Deborah, for one of the few really grown-up conservative viewpoints I've seen on this topic. Newspapers took many generations to really develop the sense of trust and ethical norms that have served this nation-- and many other free peoples-- very well for a couple of centuries.

If the newer tech sources are to eventually replace newspapers they must do a much better job than radio and TV have done. There is great advantage in the immediacy relating the news, but some downsides, too. It takes a long time for consumers to find realiable new news sources; poor sources of funding to make their businesses viable, and so on.

Until then we need newspapers in order to have a functioning democracy. It behooves the glee-mongers to wake up to the fact that newspapers are businesses, that owners tend to be Republican, and that much of the so-called left bias is merely analysis that contradicts RW spin and fantasy.

Oops
Sorry for the misspelling, Debra.

Steveo "Dying Newspapers"
Must agree with you wholeheartedly. The vast majority of newspaper reporting in the USA is, at best, an empty and biased opinion of someone called a "reporter" who is a reflection of our failed educational system. There is a certain arrogance attached to newspapers that insults the public's intelligence.
The overwhelming push to ellect Obama might be that proverbial "last straw" that will finish breaking the Camel's back. Average people are far smarter than "journalists" give them credit for...

Really?
Is this a sideways jab at the free market? What exactly is being advocated here? MSM news in general has been sloppy for years and the support has dwindled as a result. Yes, it has also been mono-ideological for way too long and that hurts them too (...anyone who makes claims the MSM is too conservative are extremely small in number and fringe in position and should be ignored, to tell conservatives a small band of liberals "complain too"...well, that just equivocates actuality with fringy perception).

So what's the point? Support what you reject or lose everything you love by proxy? Foolishness.

If these struggling papers were worth their weight they would be at minimum self supporting...not to mention if they were actually good they should turn profit.

No, this is a self-righteousness. I paraphrase,"you need us, even those of you who don't." To correct your misconception, you need US as exemplified by your loss of staff due to cut backs, not the other way around.

The free press is a right, not YOUR privilege.

Glee?
In watching a pack of smug, self-righteous hacks get their walking papers?

Yeah.

Newspaper reporting
Perhaps if newspapers were published providing factual accounts of news rather than some reporters opinion we wouldn't be seeing columns like yours.

I don't buy newspapers either
because I am old and stingy. However Ms. Saunders' argument makes sense. Actually, the only newspaper I would like to see fold is the New York Times, as a warning to the other overtly liberal rags.

good for the goose/good for the gander?
Perhaps that is the question.

Some of my friends who claim to be on the right react with outright rage over newspaper editors and journalists framing the political debate, dictating what is news-worthy and highlighting their "liberal" political proclivities...at the expense of conservative views.

"How dare they feed us this liberal tripe!"..so declare my fellow righties.

They have a point in that many newspapers are in fact liberally biased. And they do fail to contain vibrant conservative thought.

BUT, these same righties have absolutely no compunction over wallowing in the rightwing slant of events promulgated by Limbaugh, et al.

If a leftist newspaper is being dishonest to its reader by its liberal bias, why is not a Rush Limbaugh being similarly dishonest to his listener by a socalled conservative bias?

Notice I said "socalled", because on a number of issue Limbaugh is consistent with conservative principles, but NOT with his adoration of the radically utopian, leftist, neocon wetdream to remake the Muslim world to more nearly comport with what the Bush administration thinks it should be.

That is not conservative. It is arrogance, elitist(we know best the type of governance), and horrifically costly to the American people.

If leftist newspapers slant the news to comport with their philosophy, why does Rush Limbaugh not slant the news to comport with his philosophy?

I am not interested in slants from either direction.

I'm Sorry
I’m sorry Ms Sounders but the overwhelming majority of the Newspapers are liberal and they spin the news in a liberal manner. I think that they ARE losing circulation because of that liberal spin. I know that I cancelled my subscription to “The State” Newspaper because it got to where I just could stand to read it anymore.

Now even my local paper from a town of 7,000 having been bought out by a chain has turned liberal and is a virtual talking point paper for the Democratic Party. I will let that paper expire as well.

As for reporters, the papers have long ago got rid of reporters. They have a few people left who go down and interview local officials for local color but all the papers now get their real news from AP. You know, the agency that hires terrorists for reporters.

I’m sorry that a few conservative columnists will get the boot as well as the hundreds of thousands of liberals, but that is the breaks.

Not news, just opinions
The reason I don't buy or read the local liberal rag in Asheville, NC and Hendersonville is that they do not report the news without bias.(I think both papers are subsidiaries of larger intities) An associate gave a reporter an interview on the state of the housing market and the reporter twisted the facts. The reporter made the story into what the paper wanted the people to believe. How can you trust that?
The fact is Debra; we are starved for the TRUTH. When you go to NBC, CBS, or ABC you get the same six stories in a different order. Now, it doesn’t take the sharpest knife in the drawer to see that we are being fed propaganda and not facts.
I too miss the morning paper, but I want the NEWS, not an interpretation. I work hard to stay informed and educated. I believe man made climate change is a scam, because I research the facts. I believe there were weapons of mass destruction, because I research the facts. I also believe congress is irresponsible!

jerabaub
Rush does not claim to be an unbiased reporter. He will tell you upfront he is a conservative commentator. He looks at everything from a conservative perspective and doesn't for a second try to hide who and what he is. When listening to or reading any conservative commentators I can filter out the the political bias from the facts because I am forewarned of the political leanings of the source.

Most newspaper reporters take valid news and add their own liberal spin to it and try to convince the world they are objective reporters. When reading news from the NYT and other such papers I have to research the background of the story to find what is fact and what is liberal bias written in.

The NYT needs to change it's logo "all the news that's fit to print" to "we print all the news that fits".

liteside, re" jerabaub
Excellent comments to jerabaub - you beat me to the punch.

And I've found that jerabaub always manages a way to segue into his favorite subject - the "Muslim world" and "neocons".

Sounds like a "Paulian".

I still buy the paper.
I'm from an area which helps to support a small local newspaper. They have chosen not to try and compete with the larger print media buy concentrating mostly on local events, politics, and happenings.

They have a presence on the INTERNET and I could get most everything I want just by accessing them there. Fortunately, they actually try to print the facts in an unbiased manner so I am willing to support them by subscribing.

The left leaning garbage spewers, are seeing the results of their bias because readership/subscriptions are plummeting. When enough folks get tired of the one-sidedness, by continuing not to support a particular paper, I believe this will turn around. If my local paper were not at least making an effort be fair, I would also cancel my subscription.

BTW. IMHO, I don't think the "Buggy Whip" illustration is a good example of what's happening to newspapers today. We're talking apples and oranges with this topic. There are too many differences to use that analogy.

Many Reasons For Subscriber Loss
Newspapers started their decline when you stopped having overseas news bureaus and now all get your news from the AP. We're not getting boots on the ground news, from sources who live in these countries and know what's really going on inside those countries. We're getting canned tuna all from one source (AP) or Reuters. When I want to read about something going on overseas, I go to Google News and read stories from an assortment of overseas newspapers that have people on the street all year round.

Also, if I lived in LA, why should I read about a tornado in Missouri from an LA Times AP story when I can read a Missouri newspaper online with in depth info and photos by reporters who live there?

A news opinion problem (print and TV) - DC/NY/LA media hubris. When you go to Iowa, for example, to cover the primary and the "analysts/columnists" opining on the political behavior of the people of Iowa are from NY and DC, I just want to puke. You print and TV news guys can't find a single Iowa reporter/editor, Iowa radio host or Iowa politician to analyze the behavior of people they know for that event?

I live in a town of 27,500 and subscribe to 2 local newspapers for local news and event info. I get my national and international news from TV sources I trust because they deliver it faster. If I want to know more in depth info, I go to Google News. If it's about some congressman from Utah, I'll read a Washington newspaper and a Utah newspaper. The big city in the next county wants me to subscribe to their paper. Why should I? I don't live, work or go there and they're carrying the same AP stuff on the National and International scene you are.

Lastly, when you all started to let opinion seep into your news stories (by coloring words, omitting pieces of a story and burying other stories you didn't deem important in liberalworld) you lost subscribers.

Hey, You're in a War for Survival
There is a lot of truth in what you say, but much of the circulation drop is due to mismanagement by newspaper publishers. Take the New Jersey Star Ledger, please! It runs two full pages of comic strips, pages of obits, and pages of legal notices. I just want the news, bare, unvarnished.

As one who has worked in publishing, I would suggest that the Star Ledger and these other failing newspapers should bring in the experts, analyze their audience, poll their potential readers, and completely revamp their publications to keep up with changing times and changing readership.

I like the Wall Street Journal. It gives you news straight up, granted that most long pieces concern financial topics, and publishes solid, commonsense editorials and op-ed pieces, grounded in realism and a conservative outlook. In my opinion if it increased its coverage of nonfinancial topics it could easily become THE national newspaper in the USA.

As most intelligent observers know, the New York Times is a disgrace. It has surrendered its objectivity to a liberal agenda. Like many others I gave up buying the NYT years ago. Given its resources, plants, equipment, personnel, I would almost bet that new, objective management could transform this newspaper into a circulation giant in the entire country.

Newspaper publishers, editors, and reporters--all have got lazy. They are in a war with the Internet, TV cable shows, and talk radio and they don't seem to realize that one dominant fact.




I had subscriptions to newspapers
most of my life. You really want to know WHY I STOPPED?

The liars in print.

When awards are yanked over lies.
Jayson Blair
Eason Jordan

Newspapers print lies as often as truth
but they are found out:
New York Times leads the way in number of retractions and omissions of truth.

There is a way to say the president's policy is bad without CALLING HIM AN IDIOT all the time.

There is a way to write about the war WITHOUT CONSTANTLY CRITIZISING IT.

There is a way to write about America without DREDGING UP ALL THE BAD ALL THE TIME FROM THE PAST.

And I am SO TIRED of hearing what others pick in some stupid poll. ALL POLLS ARE LIES.

A Jones Nobody Heard of
Sam, who the hell is Alex Jones? 20 million Rush Limbaugh listeners want to know. Lmao.

Newspapers survived
Newspapers survived and even thrived with the advent of radio and television. Two technologies that transformed America.
This time it is different for a reason.
Could it be that they simply are not in tune with the views of the market they SELL to?
Sorry to say I wouldn't miss the NYT, Atlanta Journal, USA Today, et al.

Boomer, Fl.

Newspapers and journalists...
brought this all on themselves. I have often read the account of a very good early college level journalism professor asking new freshmen on the first day of class how many of them wanted in some way to change the world? All the students who raised their hands were asked to drop the class and change majors. It seems that it should be the job of journalists to simply report the news rather than give their personal spins or opinions. Oh how I wish that the likes of Dan Rather, or Maureen Dowd or any of their ilk would have had that profesor in school! I quit taking the liberal rag of the local paper here 10 years ago and have never once looked back. However, I now purchase only one copy per year just before election time to check who they endorse. I vote the other way every time. That is worth the .25 cents right there!

Liteside and Primus
The fact remains many of Limbaugh's fans tune in to him for news.

Yes, it is mixed with commentary, but he decides what he wants to comment upon, and that in itself is limiting the "news" to what he deems it to be...the same odious practice socalled righties find so detestible about liberal media... deciding what is newsworthy(precluding items favorable to conservative ideology), and spinning what it does deem to be news to fit its liberal bias.

Regarding Bush and the neocons, it is pretty well established how the arrogant mindset in thinking we have some ordained mission to remake the Muslim world in our image has betrayed the essence of conservative thought.

It is, however, consistent with leftist interventionism, do-gooderism, and the nannystate mentality in "knowing what is best for others".


Perhaps.......
Perhaps , Ms Saunders , it would be too much to hope for that mainstream media outlets make a corporate decision to remove bias from hard news and relegate editorializing to the proper space of newsprint . I think that basic fairness is all that many conservatives , certainly this one , truly desire. Maybe if I felt that my profession were threatened might display the same level of defensiveness but come on , the ship has huge holes that need to be PROPERLY fixed . This is , after all , why it is sinking.

technological reality

Newspapers have to do what the record industry has had to do: find a way to generate revenue absent the sale of a "physical" product. People will always want music and news, but the reality is they would rather download both.

Adapt or perish, Ms. Saunders.

Rush doesn't have 20 million listeners
That is almost 1/10 of America. That means if this statement were true at least 1/10 of the people at work in America have their radio stations tuned into him on syndication.

You think their managers and bosses would let them do that in our politically correct environment. I don't think so. Those 20 million listeners are cooked up.

Rush Limbaugh's time was during the Clinton years where he had 10 million.

He does not have 10 million listeners.

Jerseyvet
The "Old Gray Hag" has not "surrendered its objectivity to a liberal agenda". Rather, it has given up news reporting and promoting a liberal agenda in favor of attempting to set the liberal agenda, as the policy shop for the Democrats. Woe be it to those on the left who don't adopt the OGH's policy positions.

Alex Jones has 4 million plus listeners
The websites indicate that. Alexa.com search indicates that infowars.com it is one of the top 6000 in the world and growing.

See newspapers, conventional talk radio, and week publications are all going down the tubes.

Alex Jones internet restreamed radio (mp3, real media player, etc.) is played free and all over the world.

The cover topics from:
1) North American Union
2) Loss of freedoms - corporate/govt. dominated media
3) Economy - M3 money supply (most americans never heard of), dollar devaluation, debt based currencies
4) International news - (don't get that from newspapers)
5) call-ins from the United States, Australia, Switzerland, Israel, New Zealand, Ireland, England, South Africa, etc.

Guests like Jerome Corsi, Paul Craig Roberts (former Under Treasury Secratary-Ronald Reagan), Bob Chapman (international forecaster),
Joeseph Stiglitz (former IMF World Bank President), etc.

Alex Jones created a movie called "End Game - BluePrint for Global Enslavement"

The world has changed and Hannity, Limbaugh, Couric, Ingraham, O'Reilly, Wolf Blitzer are hanging in the dust...

Times have changed.

Internet radio - via ("Real Media/.asx extension")

Copy the link:
http://www.infowars.com/infowars.asx


..

jerabaub
Certainly some people get some of their news from Rush.

But there is (being repetitive, I know) a 180 degree difference between getting news from a source who openly admits his agenda - and a source that attempts to camouflage itself as "unbiased".

Besides, one of the great things that Rush does is read from his sources verbatim - or provide recorded commentary of his sources - then he comments on them.

As to Iraq and the attempt to style a western democracy out of it - the fact remains that we are there, we cannot turn back the clock, and there is no benefit to keep discussing facts that cannot be changed.

If some semblance of democratic rule can now be brokered in one of the oil rich Arab nations - there at least exists the possibility of future spill-over that might go a long way to creating regional stability while minimizing the effectiveness of Islamic extremists.

Weekly newspapers good source for news
Right on Debra. So much of what is now touted as news on the Internet is pure trash, opinion and creative writing and thinking. Look at the backgrounds of seasoned newspaper reporters and editors, or even those reporting (not reading) the news on television and you find career-minded journalists who started at local newspapers and radio/TV stations, developing their skills by covering police, city councils and general civic affairs. No one covering national news (or Washington, D.C.) started there. Access to actual newspapers on the Internet has probably brought papers such as the Chronicle, New York Times, even the Washington Post into homes for quick reading that those readers seldom saw before. But when you go to regional and local dailies, they generally post upfront (or on top of the screen) the same global, national stories, and then make it more difficult to read about the new $8-million arts center being planned locally or municipal worker pay increases that could have as much impact on local property and sales taxes as anything out of Washington. In fact, as the dailies cut their editorial staffs, they increasingly don’t even bother covering this type of news. That, of course, boosts the interest in the growing number of weekly and two-or-five day newspapers that serve these reader interests, which is further sapping the advertising and circulation base of the dailies. Weeklies may be the new generation of newspapers both in print and online editions with fewer sources needed for regional, national and global news.

The problem
As I see it newspapers have a couple of huge problems, mainly all of their news tends to have just a couple of sources and too much of the news reported by staff reporters reads like an editorial. Why should I plunk down $0.50 to $1 for a newspaper to read a bunch of news stories with an AP or Reuters byline, when I can log on and find the same stories for free? And when it comes to local news, way too much of it comes with an editorial slant that turns readers off. Why should I want to spend time reading a story about a local tax plan when i can't just get the facts of the plan, but I have to wade through the writer's suppositions about what the plan will mean?

As for the new media angle, the closest big city paper to my home offers an online edition for those of us who don't want the print edition with the same stories, and in some cases special coverage of stories exclusive to the online edition. They sell subscriptions to the online edition, they have reporters who file stories both for the online and print editions, and they sell plenty of ads on the online edition. And they aren't suffering any ill effects; their revenues have risen, and their readership has grown because they added the online edition for people who don't want to spend the time to wade through a print edition.

The problem
As I see it newspapers have a couple of huge problems, mainly all of their news tends to have just a couple of sources and too much of the news reported by staff reporters reads like an editorial. Why should I plunk down $0.50 to $1 for a newspaper to read a bunch of news stories with an AP or Reuters byline, when I can log on and find the same stories for free? And when it comes to local news, way too much of it comes with an editorial slant that turns readers off. Why should I want to spend time reading a story about a local tax plan when i can't just get the facts of the plan, but I have to wade through the writer's suppositions about what the plan will mean?

As for the new media angle, the closest big city paper to my home offers an online edition for those of us who don't want the print edition with the same stories, and in some cases special coverage of stories exclusive to the online edition. They sell subscriptions to the online edition, they have reporters who file stories both for the online and print editions, and they sell plenty of ads on the online edition. And they aren't suffering any ill effects; their revenues have risen, and their readership has grown because they added the online edition for people who don't want to spend the time to wade through a print edition.


Medie Bias
The reason newspapers are failing is because they are too liberal period. Americans are not lefties by a long shot but every big city newspaper reports from the left.
It can be proven that if a paper would lose it's left bias their circulation would shoot way up. No one is willing to try , mainly because they would have fire 99% of their reporters and editors. These people are liberals first Democrats second and Americans third. Am I questioning their patriotism, they would ask, my answer Damn right I am.

Media Bias
The reason newspapers are failing is because they are too liberal period. Americans are not lefties by a long shot but every big city newspaper reports from the left.
It can be proven that if a paper would lose it's left bias their circulation would shoot way up. No one is willing to try , mainly because they would have fire 99% of their reporters and editors. These people are liberals first Democrats second and Americans third. Am I questioning their patriotism, they would ask, my answer Damn right I am.

Newspapers Demise
Good column. My son in law is a far left loon
(phd) He never reads a newspaper.I had hoped the Examiner would come back with a more centrist political editorial and give the Chronicle a little competition. You make a good point O"Reilly will dance with joy

It seems rather simple
Quality and Value!

It seems to me that people will always spend their money if they are getting some kind of reciprocal value. There is an expectation when the money is laid down as to what will be received in return.

I believe that most people want to know what is going on in the world around them. Hence the demand for the local paper. Combining international, national, and local information, the paper was an excellent medium for passing this on to the general public.

Now that the means of information transmittal are increasing and changing, newspapers have been losing their clout as to being the primary deliverer of the news.

Combine this with the quality, or lack there of, of the presentation of the news, the papers are headed in the wrong direction.

If the newspapers would actually combine well-written articles that were objective, they would regain some of their lost readers. Until they do, they will be viewed as simply opinion rags that push their views not just through editorials, but with every word published.

To the newspapers: We already know your views and your perspectives. Keep those on the editorial pages and REPORT THE NEWS WITHOUT YOUR BIASES AND PREJUDICES!

Off the soapbox.

Kind Regards to All

It's a market correction
You assert that even busy, smart people "don't know what they don't know." That's a convenient aphorism, but one that must also be applied to the conservative side of most news stories. People have endured decades of liberal bias from newspapers and television networks, during which they've learned that most of them selectively omit covering news that's inconsistent with those outlets' overarching liberal ideology, and that news that is covered is spun to support that same ideology. While people may indeed not appreciate the actuality of a paperless existence, they're completely aware that it will include a multitude of things that newspapers endeavor to conceal from them. They're painfully aware that there's much you don't want them to know.

The perils of existence only among co-believers is a succinct description of why newspapers and broadcast networks are in their current straits. Anybody with the temerity to question the dominant newsroom ideology has been culled from the herd, leaving "reporters" few and far between among the legions of left-leaning "journalists" who've ruined your industry.

The news media's vanishingly small credibility is the logical consequence of letting a soluble problem fester, unacknowledged and unreported, until it assumes disastrous proportions. The news business in the last 40 years is a case study in classic groupthink.

Since most of the media are complicit in this ideological winnowing, it follows that most of the media will be adversely affected by the market that corrects it. The media that are left standing afterward will be the ones less disposed to engage in the activities that brought the news business to its present lamentable state.

If you wind up detached from the Chronicle and do not become part of another media outlet, it will be because the market doesn't value you. You should focus your introspection on why that is, not on the fact of it.


Rotting Produce

Could it be that in the marketplace of ideas that few people like the fare the newspapers offer. A fruit stand offering rotting fruit is likely to fail; here the newspaper's produce looks bad, smells bad and is likely to cause indigestion. Replacing the rotting fruit (in this case left leaning reporters) with a balance of healthful fare to a nation of thoughtful readers is just what the doctor would order.

Want some cheese to go with this whine?
People aren't buying your product. You need to do two things: A) Learn why; B) Fix it. Don't think self-righteous lectures like this contribute to A or B.

To be even more blunt than a previous poster: ADAPT OR DIE.

Corporate talk over
I'm not sure why Debra failed to mention the fall of the Examiner and the history of newspapers in general.

It use to be that most cities had multiple newspapers, including SF.

It also use to be that by law a company couldn't own two newspapers in the same market.

It also use to be, by law, that banks couldn't cross state lines.

The fact is that Republican deregulation that happened during the 1980s has done irreparable damage. The entire mortgage fiasco can be traced back to deregulation as well as the oil speculation. Enron's debacle.

The irony, of course, is that corporate consolidation is meant to do one thing: eliminate competition and create a monopoly.

The newspaper industry is going the way of the auto industry. It will continue to consolidate until there are only 3 big players, the modern equivalent of Ford, GM and Chrysler. These three big players will produce the same crap in the newspaper industry as does Ford, GM and Chrysler. Then Japan's equivalent of Toyota will launch a newspaper in the U.S. and clean American clocks.

The elimination of competition never produces a better company. The heart and soul of the human spirit is competing. Something Republicans have no respect for because the easiest way to big profits is little competition, ergo Exxon is the Republican ideal.



Cry me a river....
Debra. If you guys weren't so slanted and more competitive then you wouldn't have these problems.

The hubris of the 60's radicals is coming home to roost. You guys assumed everyone agrees with whatever slant or cause du jour is happening. You automatically dismiss those that don't agree.

Most people will always want two things. The facts and the truth. They will go where they can get them. The latest example of newspaper cover up as well as network news is Edwards. The new headline ought to read how you guys were out scooped again and by doing so helped Edwards to lie. Anyone investigating it further over there? Cause it looks to me like Edwards used campaign funds to pay for his mistress and whole lot of dishonest people were involved.

And what is with those stupid radical left wing letter to the editors about? People really don't need a letter to the editor to know that there are nuts in this world. They need to be drummed out of society but instead you give them a marquee.

You guys think you are king makers so you deserve what you get.

Sam #17
Check your facts Sam. Rush does have 20 million listeners. You obviously are not a listener or you know the truth.

No Job Security
Does Saunders mean to say that we have to tolerate the evil, lying, leftist papers to insure that a few token "conservatives" have a print outlet? I don't think so. Good riddance to the NYT, WaPo, LATimes, and so on.

LEFT-WING BIAS
I once had an argument with a young, sharp third-mate in MV Marine Princess, concerning the left-wing bias/slant commonly found in newspapers. He maintained that there was no such thing and insisted that my 34 years in the Navy was the cause of my seeing left-wing views in most publications. The ship's agent had delivered several papers when we arrived that morning. I took two into my stateroom and gleaned through them. I found 27 examples of left-wing bias'/slants in the NYT and 10 in the Tribune -- in about fifteen minutes! The bias'/slants found were so clear that the officer had to agree with me. He then looked in four or five newspapers, but found nothing to indicate a conserative bias/slant.

Atheist Provocateur
You need to check your facts. Most of those business went under completely, not merged, like the Examiner. You left Oakland out of that equation as well.

Many merged, with the blessings of Congress, to stay in business and keep people employed. See the oil companies if you need examples. They merged when oil was at about 10.00 dollars per barrel. Many refineries, especially in CA, went under due to regulation, not deregulation. Due to the regulation forced through by the greenies they could not afford to maintain the over restrictive standards and stay open in their current economic climate. So they closed. Meeting those standards, along with the litigation costs, was to expensive. That was the aim of the greenies all along though.

Debra Saunders, buggy maker
I understand your anger and sense of betrayal, Ms. Saunders. It's hard to accept that your failing industry must reinvent itself apace and may collapse anyway.

The American newspaper was declining years before you were born, however. It was in bad shape when the _New York Times_ let a blackmailed homosexual turn Stalin into a hero. Overall it was in worse shape when not one outlet picked up the Lewinsky story until Matt Drudge had broken it on the Internet. It's even worse off now -- clamorous about gay marriage and global warming, resolutely silent about improvements in Iraq, unwilling and apparently unable to deal seriously or credibly with the John Edwards story long after being scooped by a mere tabloid.

The American newspaper has made itself irrelevant. By confusing opinion with news and suppression with reporting, it has alienated subscribers. (Why buy a newspaper when you can get left-wing sermons and fantasy on the air gratis?) By greedily pursuing revenue (while denouncing greed in others), it has increased the ratio of ads to copy and cut staff, squeezing out what little news remained -- and losing more subscribers. (Why buy a newspaper when you can get ads and coupons galore from the neighborhood shopper that turns up unbidden in your front yard?)

The American newspaper still has its uses. Its very lack of credibility has made it a reliable source of information. If a newspaper says that tomorrow will be sunny, we know to take a raincoat. If a newspaper says that the treasures of Iraq were destroyed by American forces or looted on their watch, we know that no such thing happened. If a newspaper says that its polls show rising public concern over some obscure issue, e.g., campaign-finance reform, we know that no one gives a damn.

You're right about one thing: we don't know what we don't know. But we do know that if a newspaper says nothing, something important must be going on.

You caused your own demise.
For fifty year(beginning in the Viet
Nam era)I sat and listened to the
press state lies as truth.My father
was in Viet Nam during many of the
stories unfactually reported and
provided my enlightenment.After the
PUBLIC was bombarded with left
slanted presentations as gospel news
for enough years it dawned on the
most believing member of the public
that the basic core of the press in,
THIS GREAT COUNTRY,had become rotten.
I feel the Rather incident was the
straw that broke the camels back.YOU
have lost credibility with the public
YOU SERVE.Find another line of work
or get off your wimpering butt and get
out there and regain credibility with
exempelery efforts in a bonafide
attempt to get the american press back
as the TRUTH SAYER the Constitution
meant it to be.
JMH

Newspapers or Firestarters
Yes, the demise of newspapers is sad. So was the demise of the buggy whip industry. But neither made any attempt to modernize. And when any industry does not make every attempt keep up, they deserve to die. The automobile industry, which decided, that, instead of working to rid itself of the UAW, decided to work with it, is now dying.

When you live in an supposed metropolitian area, such as Portland, OR, which has what may be the worst daily newspaper in the country, you have no choice but to seek your news from other sources.

I have no problem with any paper taking an editorial stance, but keep it to the editorial page. I do not want to read illegal immigrant sob stories on the front page. I do not want a major paper releasing state secrets on the front page. I want straight news, that is legal to publish, with no coloring.

Ms. Saunders has the bad luck to work for a daily newspaper in the US's worst city. It, by backing the nonsense that goes on there, deserve to die.

The injuries suffered by the press are self-inflicted, and if they die, they die by their own stupidity.

Asteroid at 10 O'clock!
"Do they understand that if this keeps up, then I may not be around to write the columns they like, not to mention respond to their e-mails?"

(I stopped reading your silly column after this line.)

What absolute rubbish. Sites like Townhall.com will continue to provide you a forum for your columns and only you can prevent yourself from responding to e-mails.

Perhaps what bothers you the most is that the internet gives the reader, and bloggers are readers, the chance to respond to the nonsense that many of you so-called “journalists” spew. We know the difference between news and propaganda.

We get our say without fear of being silenced by the thought control brigades. We can’t do that in your hallowed newspaper halls.

And if you do lose your job, that would be just fine by me. A massive asteroid is headed your way. It’s extinction time!

It will not last long
The liberal elitists are not just gong to admit defeat and go away. They are too heavily invested in social engineering to admit failure. Anyway, they can already taste blood. It will not be long before the same powers that hijacked the public school systems will also hijack the internet. It seems to me there are indicators they are already looking for a way to control the content of the internet. I suspect that someday soon contrasting ideas will deemed to be “hate speech” by some liberal elitist. I am expecting these self-serving liberal groups to censure the internet, just like their comrades already do in China.

Neither do I expect help from conservative politicians, because they seem to be just as concerned about their loss of control of the ignorant masses.

"Do they understand that if this keeps u
Ms. Saunders,

We need new laws requiring Newspapers to respect the truth. The owners, editors and staffs of over ninety percent of all Newspapers in the USA purposefully abuse their First Amendment special status. That is the problem.

New laws with harsh and severe punishments should correct the problem.

Journalism Schools across the nation do not teach Journalism. Reporters proudly report that their job is to shape the news, like
Walter Cronkite, who reported the defeat of the North Vietnamese as an American defeat.

What I am saying is that the fault is not in the stars, but in ourselves.

David L. Besser

It's About Trust
Debra Saunders is a journalist I can trust. Unfortunately, this John Edwards scandal has revealed (again) how little the MSM can be trusted.

When the National Enquirer becomes the Paper Of Record while the Los Angeles Times officially and actively quashes its reporters even looking into the story that is 16 miles from the LAT's headquarters, something is definitely wrong with our "news" papers.

The collective stonewalling of the Edwards story did grave damage to those who call themselves "reporters."

Add to that the unquestioned "see-no-gaff or inconsistency" boosterism concerning affirmative action presidential candidate Obama.

Then there was the amazingly bad Katrina coverage. Shep Smith was agonizing about the "victims" in distress (but safe) in view of his cameras while failing to tell the story of the Coast Guard saving thousands in an unprecedented rescue effort going on under his nose...but unreported. The newsies then had the gall to award themselves self-aggrandizing trophies for "outstanding coverage."

These obvious failings lead me to question how many other stories we aren't getting from our vaunted Fourth Estate.

When feelings trump facts and even car and restaurant reviews become platforms to bash Bush, I might as well get my info from Oprah and "Dr." Phil.

Bottom line, "journalists" as a class (of Columbia J-school grads) aren't to be trusted.

When newspapers can't be trusted they lose their purpose for being. The market then discards them.

steveo - Rush does not have 20 million..
How is that possible to have 20 million?

1) There are 300 million Americans. Half of those people work full time (150 million).

Kids 20 years don't listen to that. They are out of the equation.

Take 150 million people. That means from the sample size that 1 in 10 listen to Rush Limbaugh in order to get 15 million not even 20 million Americans. Pure rubbish.

People are busy working and don't have time. Rush Limbaugh's show starts on regular business working hours 12-3:00PM. That means that 1 in 10 workers have to take a 3 hour break and listen to him.

There is no way. Rush's website log statistics don't even indicate that. Rush's website log statistics are way behind Alex Jones on "infowars.com".

Another lie from the MSM media.

....

Local News
I get my world news from other sources and have for years. I wish our local paper did more in depth stories such as new tech or science. We do sometimes get stories about people doing good unusual activities. I continue to subscribe because I can't find a better source for local news and events. Editorials, letters to the editor and the comics also keep me reading the newspaper. Also you can pick it up with out turning it on and you can even cut out stories. Still the best! However it is also wonderful to have the other media.

Rep. Richardson Loan Defaults
You know what was cool? My little local newspaper, the Daily Breeze, (which I quit taking because Bogert offends me) broke the Rep. Richardson (D-Long Beach) story.

Richardson financed her congressional campaign by defaulting on three speculated house-flips--essentially stealing money from the bank to finance her move to Congress.

To its credit, the Breeze uncovered this and it was picked up nationally...for three minutes.

Had Richardson been a Republican, she would be hounded out of office and possibly in jail.

But because she's a "victim" of the sub-prime loan debacle, a minority and, most importantly, a Democrat, she's still in office and even mysteriously found the money to buy back one of the houses--after it was sold at auction. Move along...no story here.

This is typical of the stink in today's "journalism." Kill your enemies, protect your friends, all while claiming to be "objective."

Well, Debra
... when conservatives say print journalism is losing circulation because of its entrenched leftism, it's because the people who say that have all stopped taking their local papers because of entrenched leftism.

We all know there are other reasons for the decline. But the deal with print journalism is that you do fork over money for it. Now, I love a good newspaper, but when the local one's "straight" news all comes from the usual suspects' shallowly analyzed, predictably left-leaning wire stories, and when the paper systematically eliminates almost all the syndicated columnists who are not card-carrying leftists, and when its book reviews become such parodies of left-liberalism that all you can do is laugh, and when its letters section contains no conservative viewpoints that have not been expressed by illiterate morons -- when the land lies this way, I just can't make my hand reach into my pocketbook to pay good money. I don't spend my money on stupid movies either.

I'd love to have a newspaper I could feel right spending my money on. I'm certainly not rooting for their demise -- I'm sorry to see it. I think better editorial balance in mainstream print journalism would actually help reverse the trend; it would certainly make the product better. Me to you: give us a product worth buying, and stand back!

Paper and Film: Ink vs. Digital
A better analogy to the newspaper demise is what has happened in digital photography.

This is beyond the buggy whip analogy. Unlike buggy whips that suddenly had no purpose with the advent of the auto, news itself is still wanted and needed.

The problem is how it's delivered.

When I bought my Nikon D70 in 2004--the first affordable digital camera equal to film quality--I took my unopened 20-roll block of Kodak film back to Costco. I have not bought another roll of film since. Costco no longer sells film. Just three years ago, they stocked pallets of the stuff.

One of the reasons I quit buying my local paper was because they piled up unread and became a real source of trash. And when I did read them, I could get what I wanted in about three minutes.

Too much paper, bulk, hassle and cost for benefits gained. Slow, too.

Like photography, news needs to move to digital or go the way of plastic reels of film at Costco.

Nikon made the switch. Can the SF Chronically Wrongical and the LA Slimes?

Demise of Newspapers
Several columnists at the Milwaukee paper have been lamening the loss of so many of their fellow workers. Hmmm, here's a paper that supports the Leftist, democrat agenda in a city that is not friendly to business. So as businesses depart from the city and state of Wisconsin for other parts that are more friendly and pro-business, the newspaper's ad revenue declines even more. I still buy the paper but won't have much sympathy until its columnists and editorial board wake up to the fact that being anti-business is like biting the hand that feeds it.

Th Night the Lights went out in Congress
My Blog. Check it out. Click my handle.

Diary of a mad columnist
Ms. Saunders' bewailing the demise of newspapers makes two erroneous assumptions.
1) That those who are glad to see a newspaper's failing are pleased because they wish to read only "Their" point of view. WRONG! What most readers want is a fair exposition of the news - not just the news that jibes with that paper's editorial slant.
2) That readers will lose a "reliable" source of news. WRONG! Most biased (and today that's most all) news organizations are producing slanted, sometimes flat out false, news reports.
I agree that the internet is a poor source for news. The Press, through its bias, has gone down the same path.
duxoup in Carefree, AZ

paleocon/Saunders is unconvincing cont'd
She mentions price: it is true that we get the news we are willing to pay for. I'm willing to pay for credibility and do, and I can do just as well without the free media's inundation of the population with lies. And ads? - give me a break - they're demise would be one less source of pollution.

As far as I'm concerned, the more of those print and other media types, who find themselves hitting the bricks because their industry is declining, the better. Let them experience the occupational pain that so many others have experienced because of employment displacement and industry upheavals, caused in no small part to liberal policies that they themselves so tirelessly and whiningly promoted.

paleocon/Saunders is unconvincing
'The American newspaper has made itself irrelevant. By confusing opinion with news and suppression with reporting, it has alienated subscribers.'

Excellent comments. I like Saunders, but I found her column quite self serving and excessively emotional. I find the appeal unmoving.

The print media's business is to exploit the carefully selected and empathetically promoted crimes and tragedies of others which serves their financial and political baselines and agendas.

But they've become victims of their own biases and lack of credibility. People like Saunders are, in many cases, kept at the papers like the Chronicle in an attempt to mask the overwhelming liberal/leftist propaganda that those rags promote.

It's curious that with their ceaseless environmental preaching, and business castigating even as companies move steadily toward paperless offices that the print media can still defend its use of millions of tons of newsprint annually. One busted bale of papers on a windy afternoon can create a mess that takes virtually weeks to clean up.

When we see how papers such as the NY Times have turned into such anti-American and traitorous enemy propaganda sheets, you find increasingly more American thrilled with the print media's (and the leftist Associated Press's propaganda monopoly's) demise.

The print media..
Since the maturation of the 60's radical the media has been seen as an activist profession. Too many reporters got into the business to "make a difference" or to "change the world and peoples perceptions". It's the most natural attraction; If you you believe in the virtuosity of your world view above all else, journalism has an irresistable magnetic attraction for activism.
So, feminism, multiculturalism, pro-homosexual, anti-religious, coupled with the (myopic) fight against inequality with socialistic tendencies, have been ruling the print media now for decades. Unpredictably to them, instead of shaking the people loose of their flawed beliefs, it caused a backlash. Conservative media was a direct answer to that realization, Fox News would not more exist if it weren't a correlated reaction to the existence of single minded activism in MSM. Its the self-proclaimed mantra of the activist that if "they" won't submit to the superiority of our ideas then it becomes necessary to change things "from the inside-out".
The sad reality is, after the growth of conservative media, attracting millions of viewers and dollars as a born reaction to the MSM, they remain adverse to simple introspection. This article exemplifies that, instead of admitting even the possibilty, opening the print media to diversity in thought and ideas, she argues the opposite that created the problem in the first place. She maintains the liberal status quo, that she so right that anything else could only be wrong. She maintains they'd rather consume themselves than to recognize and be open to the possibility of alternative viewpoints. They're not being killed my outside forces as she claims, they're instead choosing ideological suicide.

The print media (cont.)
I remember hearing Ariana Huffington just lately arguing the impossibility of her positions being ideologically left. When challenged about the possibility that she owns some unpopular ideas she explains,"Well, that's because they're just wrong". Admittedly shes not part of the MSM, but the point remains. The print media suffers the same delusion, incapable of even witnessing their own bias. In their bubble of ideas they are in the majority; within that circle, to step outside their views is a simple difference between right and wrong.
So you are quite mad, not by anger but insanity. Her article makes a clear plea (paraphrase), we will continue to do the same things we've always done but, by explaining this, I will expect different results.

According to her we are all free to choose and merely "suffer the consequences". Problem is Mrs. Saunders is late, choices are already being made and she's just stubbornly realizing it.

Small, local newspapers
still have a place. It is precisely papers like the Chronicle, the NYT, the LAT, and other liberal-only propaganda machines that have outgrown their usefulness. Smalltown papers still provide local news of interest that is impractical to disseminate by electronic means, at least at this time.

Thanks, Grubby
Like the industry in which she works, Ms. Saunders, normally a humane and interesting commentator, is utterly clueless.

Newspapers have two sources of income, subscriptions and ad sales. They earn subscriptions mainly by providing timely, credible information and coherent analysis. Horoscopes and crosswords have their constituents, but don't win lifetime loyalty. Newspapers earn ad sales by attracting and retaining subscribers to whom advertisers might sell things. Newspapers that drive away readers by lying to them, insulting them, dismissing them, or trying to keep them in the dark lose both revenue sources simultaneously. Worse content, fewer readers; fewer readers, fewer advertisers; fewer advertisers, worse content.

Despite her mystification, it makes perfect sense for publishers to give away their content online if fewer and fewer people are willing to buy it on paper. If they can't sell their content to readers, they still have a chance to sell their readers to advertisers. The problem with this strategy is that many publishers' content is so insubstantial or repellent that they _can't_ give it away.

Thanks, Ropati
I agree. I still buy a local paper but not the biased NYT & others.

If Newspapers are Too Liberal
Then why is the Washington Times also failing, despite its extremely conservative editorial and reporting viewpoint and the infusion of literally a couple of BILLION dollars from Sun Myung Moon?

Higene & Munck
Make the point better than anyone else.

First Munick, findings a pebble in the pond and then equates it with the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The same thing Saunders does. If I can find ten people who claim conservative bias, then it negates the ten thousand whom complain about the liberal bias. Starting with an assertion, then searching for facts-to-fit is the lack of honesty charge the media's credibility suffers.

Higene, makes the second point perfectly. If you don't conform to my superior point of view its because your a flat lander. It's not about clarity in differing points of view; it's that I'm right and your wrong and the explanation lies in your ignorance. The second major mistake the media makes that drives down its readership.

Ockham's razor - what's more likely, that the media has recently become so ground breakingly smart that the readership can't keep up or, it's a lazy and self righteous explanation that soothes the ego in acceptance of failure.

I Don't Miss Newspaper P.C. Palaver
I was a broadcast journalist 30 years ago in Chicago and it is clear that most of the people commenting on this column get it and the columnist doesn't!
I encourage everyone I know to stop subsidizing their local leftist papers like the Atlanta Journal Constitution where I live now by dropping their subscription.
For a former journalist to drop their paper is somewhat like a heroin junkie going cold turkey! I don't miss what I finally dubbed Always Just Crap (AJC) one bit!
One example will suffice. The AJC had a glowing story about how the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce has decided to position Atlanta as a gay tourist treat. Not one possible negative of that policy was ever covered or brought up by the "so called" reporter. For instance, might we see an increase in AIDS cases in Atlanta from tourism based on the hyper sexual homosexual lifestyle? I wrote the reporter an e-mail suggesting that his glowing report on the Chamber's decision was P.R. not journalism!!!!
I get my news from the broadcast media and the Internet now.
I don't miss the P.C. palaver posing as journalism in the local paper at all.

Marlson
On the money and well said.

I will also add that I dropped my local rag because it is owned by the NY Slimes. We here in the SF Bay area dubbed the Chronicle, the Comical.

Perhaps newspapers could salvage themselves if they went back to actually competing with each other. Most first get the news from Reuters or AP. Now we know how the Enquirer out scooped them on Edwards.

As for the Slimes itself, the final straw for me was when they published the info on how we were going after the terrorists bank accounts. For a bunch of leftists that don' like war one would think that they would use any method available to avoid it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

And Surely It's a Lot More Fun...
...to post on a thread, make your points and maybe get into a little tit for tat. Like one writer here said: His letters to the editor never get printed.

What's the fun of that?

The net is interactive. Reading the paper is not--unless you enjoy screaming at yourself.

Galileo the Great and Today's Media.
Most people know little if any facts about the Galileo affair. I will touch on only a few of the highlights that one doesn’t learn from their lib. teachers and/or professors. The mis-information about his case reminds me of the constant stream of fertilizer spread by the main stream newspapers.

1. Galileo was not subjected to un-ending horrible torture.

2. Galileo was never locked away in some filthy grimy dungeon. He was placed under house arrest in comfortable Italian villas, including his own.

3. Galileo was beloved by much of the church hierarchy and had audiences with the Pope, who viewed him with admiration.

4. The church did not have a problem with Galileo’s heliocentric views. He just had to produce proof, which he did not do.

5. When Kepler asked Galileo to send him his proof, Galileo ended the correspondence.

Galileo was of course absolutely correct. His problems were twofold. At that time, he could not prove his theory. Second, he had an in your face - I am right - just believe me style. This is what was so oft-putting to the church, as well as many of his contemporaries.

Personally, I greatly admire Galileo. He was a great man. He was a great intellect. He was a visionary. And, he was right.

But, I am sick of the lies that are constantly bandied about by leftist activists (who pose as educators) as if they are fact.

Newspapers Aren't Newspapers Anymore
If you, Mrs. Saunders, lose your job because your effete newspaper (See? I didn’t say dinosaur.) withers an dies, why don’t you start your own small, hometown paper. I would like to see these proliferate. And if enough small papers required unbiased news services, I am confident that such would spring up to satisfy the demand. And a proliferation of local papers would provide a variety of competing viewpoints which is the essence of the assurances of the first amendment for the public square. This is, after all, all that the internet provides. For better or worse, they are answering the call for something better than the stock, rubber-cast reporting of the previous media.

So Saunders is mad ...
how about the rest of us who've watched MSM convince Americans and the rest of the world that the United States sucks? That makes me mad. I was a journalist for 12 years and quit when I got told how to cover government (i.e., how to tell the "truth"). I used to take four daily papers and a myriad of news magazines. Today I use the internet. I don't just get news I want, I get news I need. I don't just get views I agree with, but those in direct opposition. I love that the non-reporter types publishing their findings on the web typically let us know where they stand politically unlike the majority of print reporters who act like objectivity is issued with a press card. I often learn as much from the comments sections as from the articles; so I guess we're all the reporters and keepers of truth online.

What's the difference...?
ATTENTION Newspaper Publishers!! What's the difference between REPORTAGE and JOURNALISM?

In case you don't know, a report - a piece of 'reportage' - is the unbiased and objective report of a 'story', whereas a piece of 'journalism' is a journalist's impression and opinion of that story.

What seems to have been lost in recent years, is that there is a place for both reporters and journalists in the news biz. It seems to me that unbiased reportage has been given short shrift, as Journalism students have been hired as 'reporters' by most newspapers, and the distinction has been lost.

It might benefit the newspaper industry to recall that distinction, which they seem to have forgotten or overlooked. How else to explain, for instance, the virtual news blackout of the important story of the unprecedented insistance by Republicans in Congress on remaining in session and demanding a vote on the exploitation of domestic petroleum reserves to end our dependence on often unfriendly foreign sources?

The newspapers ought to reconsider their emphasis on leftist partisan 'journalism' in favor of simple and honest reporting of news and events.

Sam:
First of all, I have no idea if Rush has 20 million listeners or not. I am not one of them. But, you are making an awful lot of assumptions that may or may not be true.

"1) There are 300 million Americans. Half of those people work full time (150 million)."

I'm taking your word for this data because I don't want to go research it. Some people are allowed to listen to the radio at work. Just because they work full time doesn't mean they are working during the show hours.

"Kids 20 years don't listen to that. They are out of the equation."

Where is the data to support that? I was listening to talk radio very early.

"People are busy working and don't have time. Rush Limbaugh's show starts on regular business working hours 12-3:00PM. That means that 1 in 10 workers have to take a 3 hour break and listen to him."

I don't have the statistics but a large percentage of the working population are shift workers. This means that a large portion of working people could be between shifts during his air time.

A word for the MSM
Having long ago considered the aspect of what impact the online paperless news sites will have on the newspaper industry, I have been looking for the direction journalism will take in the future.

My assessment? "The National Enquirer" is the new "Unbiased", and MSM is the new "Yellow".

We will still have a need for investigative reporting in the future, and money will still be paid for full-time "stake outs". But the focus will shift to true unbiased sources that are just wanting to sell papers. The public not only has an enquiring mind, we also have a discerning mind, and MSM has lost ALL of its credibility. And with that goes its relevance. Here's a word for the MSM, Don't blame the public for the direction journalism is taking, blame yourselves.

MSM 's slow death is suicide
Sorry Debra, as a conservative and former journalist I have zero empathy for newspapers and agenda-driven journalists who have failed for a very long time to provide balanced and objective reporting.

At some point beginning circa 1965, newsrooms decided to become advocates for social change. Subsequently, certain types of stories would receive fanfare and others that were detrimental to the desired narrative. If a politician broke the law or became embroiled in scandal it was downplayed if he was black and/or a Democrat. If a war was not "moral" in the view of the newsroom, then stories featuring civilian casualties caused by U.S. soldiers receive endless ink, while the sucess and heroism of those soldiers is ignored. To survive, all the print media need to do is provide fair, evenhanded coverage of important issues of our time. But the MSM would rather march arrogantly to its grave than change.

Fightr4right
You are absolutely right on! Someone mentioned the Portland Oregonian up thread. They have one mildly to the right columnist most every day. The rest of the editorial page is bent left--often WAY left and it is a rare occasion when they print a letter to the editor that disagrees with them, but MANY that DO most days.But today Hooray! A woman wrote that she is crossing party lines to vote for McCain and they printed it. (I don't buy the paper--It is recycled by me by an aunt. She buys it for the sports section and the crossword puzzle. By the way--she is 90 years old.)

Reporting or AP Regurgitation?
In most newspapers that I have seen over the last several years, a majority of the articles have an AP origin. The last I checked the AP is not exactly a politically balanced outfit. When publishers made the decision to cut reporting staff in favor of using a wire service for most of their stories is when their papers became useless.

If someone wants all AP all the time, just subscribe to AP and save all that news print.

The Buggy Whip
The buggy whip analogy fails in an important respect. If you use a buggy whip for what it is intended, it will make your horse go faster, which is the result that you want. If you use a newspaper to become informed, you will get inaccurate information, and only about those subjects that the True Believing Social Reformers at the paper want you to know about.

Here's a Toast to Goodbye of the MSM
When the Dallas Morning News made the Illegal Immigrant the "Texan of the Year" in 2007, I said "Adios!" to my 20 year subscription. I don't need to pay to be insulted! Sorry, but the Dallas Morning News and other MSM catering to a pro-illegal agenda are dying on the vine because their readers are smart enough to say "ENOUGH!" Give us a product that shares our views and maybe you might see a turn-around in the newspaper industry.

Debra Must Work For A Newspaper
I don't blame her for her loyalty, but most newspapers (including the famous ones) are downright awful. My local scandal sheet is now so PC that half of the sports pages are deovted to local female sports no one cares about (high school girls lacross, or the disabled lesbian golf tourney), at the expense of the more popular professional or college teams that interest the male readers. It's just plain stupid from a business point of view. The front pages are filled with human interest fluff while real stories concerning crime and corruption (by the local Democratic Machine that runs our county) are ignored. Again, people will shut off thier subscriptions if there's nothing to read.

The real story is the feminization of our media. Most newspapers (major and minor) have a majority of females employed in thier newsrooms. These journalists all have advanced journalism degress, but lack any talent in getting the news that requires work. There are no Mike Rykos out there (Royko started his career by hanging out out at the Chicago police precincts covering local crimes. His knowledge of Chicago spanned the back allies, nieghborhood taverns, the night lock-ups, and the night courts. There is no one like him out there today). Females have axes to grind like everyone else. And most are too lazy to go out and report. So, they get even by writing fluff stories that only interest the effette bri and wine crowd or soccor moms, and then complain when they lose thier jobs due to falling subscriptions.

"Liberal Media" and President Bush

For the record, it was the New York Times, after the controversial 2000 election, which was among the first media organizations through the late R.W. Apple, ,Jr., to proclaim "legitimacy" for George W. Bush's presidency on Sept. 16, 2001 following Mr. Bush's Ground Zero appearance, Prior to 9/11, you will recall, there was widespread unflattering depiction of Pres. Bush until his appearance at the site of the World Trade Center destruction.

Also, after the extremely close 2000 election, it was a media consortium consisting, among others, of the Washington Post as well as the New York Times which, after conducting their own review of the 2000 election results, concluded, despite some dissent, that George W. Bush would have prevailed had the U.S. Supreme Court not intervened.

Newspapers -- liberal, conservative and independent --since the early years of our nation have been an essential part of our progress and strength when serving as an adversarial force/watchdog. To gloat over their demise is to ignore their valuable contribution and historical connection.

nmi
The medium consortium’s investigation was utterly meaningless.

Those who already knew that he had legitimately won the election didn’t need the lib media to verify that they were correct.

Those who believed that he had not legitimately won the election completely ignored the media’s conclusions and even today continue to spout, “Selected, not elected.”

NMI
The role of "watch dog" is increasingly going over to blogs and independent internet reporters/specialists. Newspapers, especially local ones are so in bed with the local municipal goverments (ie Democratic party)that the fail repeatedly to report or investigate local corruption and wrong doing. If you don't believe me, check out the Atlanta Constitution or the Detroit Free Press. These papers are just mout pieces for the local Dems. Papers of national significance such as the Times are just mouth pieces for the DNC.

It is funny that the biggest scoops of the 2004 election occured in the blogesphere (ex Rathergate), and one of the biggest international scoops of the 2006 year, was the Photoshop scandal doen by a Reuters photo journalist. The second biggest scoop, occured during the Isreali\Lebanon conflict, when bloggers noticed the "Man in the Green Helmet". If you remember, this guy used to take photo journalists on cadaver tours, in which he would find bodies of dead children and pose with the corpse for the photo-journalists. Again, this scoop was found out not by a journalist but by a blogger.

I could go on (Climate Change: it wasn't a science journalist who found problems with the famed Hockey Stick, but a retired Canadian engineer turned blogger is just one expample), but I think you get my drift.

@WAY Down South
Given your statements about Galileo, perhaps you can confirm/deny something for me. One author I read on the subject basically claimed that a major portion of the 'battle' between Galileo and the Catholic institution was political, from an incident where the Pope at the time requested a specific statement be added to one of Galileo's works - a statement that Galileo put into the mouth of a fool. Do you know if there's any truth to that tale?

JPK
is dead on. The silliness of the PC mindset that prevails in the MSM is killing them. If nobody shows interest in female sports, well, we will push them on you regardless. Readership wains and then we say woe-is-me and get angry (like feminists do). Wake up Saunders, write a good paper and they will come.

News Sources:
I try to get my news from a number of sources. Television news and most radio news basically just give the headlines. If you want to know more, you have to go somewhere else. Internet news is biased depending upon who has the web site. Magazine news is very biased. The last magazine that tried to report stories fairly was bought and scrapped by Times which is very liberal. Even the U.S. News and World Report, which is the fairest of the news magazine, slants many of their stories to the liberal side.

The only real way to get local news is through a newspaper. And in addition, it is the fairest in coverage, particularly if the newspaper is local too. Large newspapers, like the New York Times, tends to slant many of their stories but local papers don't dare. They would lose too many subscribers. The only real problem is that the local papers must get most of their bigger stories from the large networks, which means the basic story is slanted.

Still, if/when I want as much of the story as possible, I will use the newspaper. It tells more of the story and more of the real story than any of the other services.

Retrenching
Debra,

You make some valid points, and I do still get the paper daily because it still at least does contain some organized and detailed reporting with (hopefully) vetted factual support.

However, over time the papers have, as Vic (I believe) put it, become little more than house organs for the Democratic National Committtee and liberal/leftist politics in general. Almost every time I read an AP story or watch a big three newscast, I have to keep myself from yelling "There is no way this is an objective, balanced treatment of this issue!!!"

Amazingly, as more and more newspapers fold or experience hard times, instead of analyzing what went wrong and how it could be fixed, they dig in even more.

One might think that with the success of the Fox News template these businessmen would ask themselves: Why not present the facts, with editorializing limited to the back pages and consisting of solid opinions from the left AND the right? Let our readers have the unvarnished truth, then let them decide.

One only has to reference the double standards of the NYT with reference to the Obama/McCain opinion pieces to see that this is apparently not an option. They would rather perish than give up their liberal bias.

Ender
You could be referring to the church’s insistence that Galileo admit that his “theory” was indeed still a “theory.” In other words, he was allowed to research and discuss the possibility of a heliocentric system as long as he clearly stated that it was a theory, but he was not allowed to declare it to be an established fact. The church adamantly refused to allow him to publish without definitive evidence.

Galileo stubbornly refused to refrain even though he knew that he couldn’t yet produce evidence. He was incredibly obstinate and didn’t want to accept this restriction.

As I mentioned before, Kepler was dying to get his hands on Galaileo’s proof. Up until Kepler became insistent about seeing the data, the two had engaged in a healthy correspondence. It was Galileo that ended it. Of course one can do little more than guess, but I believe that he didn’t want to admit the truth to Kepler.

This is what led to his house arrest. It wasn’t because the church was anti-science or because they had a vested interest in an earth-centric system.

One need only spend a small amount of time reading about the 12th century Scholastic Renaissance to accept that the church was to a great extent pro-science, and that it’s priests and monks made many great advances in a number of fields long before the Italian Renaissance.

Please find a newspaper for me
I fully agree with Debra and would love to support print media but I live in the Chicago marketplace and on occasion buy the Sun-Times but I have to find a newspaper that at least makes an attempt to semi-support Conservative views - as a hunter and gun-owner and economic conservative when I purchase the Tribune and start reading I just want to throw it away - the Sun Times is not a whole lot better. If there was one decent newspaper that semi supported my views I would subscribe - do the readers or columnist have any suggestions? My money is precious and I do not spend on anything that is liberal.

Newspapers?

How about Scientific American? It took all of 4-5 columns by Jeffrey Sachs and my 5 year loyalty to the magazine went to trashcan.

Replace Mr Sachs with a scientist, then we might talk business again.

It's supposed to be a *scientific* magazine, what place have "correct" global policies in magazine like that?

And you are worried about newspapers ...

igor 9:03 PM EST
"How about Scientific American? ... It's supposed to be a *scientific* magazine, what place have "correct" global policies in magazine like that?"

SciAm has always been more than just straight science, whatever that may mean. Pollution, over-fishing, mass transit, energy policy -- all the things where science and public policy rub together, which is just about everywhere. Just look at the items in their "50, 100, and 150 years ago" feature; they've been doing it for a century and a half.

And they provide a lively forum for dissent. The letter column has always contained sharp attacks from people who disagree with an article's politics, and now there are comment threads for each article on the web site.

And I don't think they're having any financial troubles; their paid circulation is about 700,000 and their audience is about 3 million. The web site is first-rate, with podcasts, videos, discussion forums, and the print-edition articles in very readable form. I read about half the content of a given issue online.

Of course, the vast majority of their writers and readers are on the liberal side; it's about science, after all.

I love....
Scientific American, whats your point.

And uh, by the way, a majority of American scientists say they are religious or "have a strong belief in God"

Liberal, probably not. Even if what you were saying were true, pontificating about string theory or otherwise does not qualify you as making good social assertions or policy. So go to sleep.

Tom...
I feel your pain, and the circus down in Springfield right now is proof positive, it doesn't matter how bad things get in this city or state, too many here will continue to vote in inept statesmen like Obama and Blubgoiavich (or however you spell that goofs name).

If any of you want to know what horrible government looks like, come to Chicago, the stepping stone of BO.

What a nightmare.

MSM does 100 Times more Harm than Good!
I'm sure there will be voids as major papers decline.

But their blatant left wing bias has done 100 TIMES MORE HARM THAN GOOD, is on the verge of sending our Country and the World into an IRREVERSIBLE DOWNWARD SPIRAL, and their loss of customers is poetic.

Supporting these companies is Digging One's Own Grave!

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.