The Rocky Mountain News, Denver's oldest newspaper, went out of business Friday. Just why newspapers are in decline is a matter of debate. Is it liberal slant or the internet that's killing them?
Deb Saunders really lays into newspaper critics in her latest article. She and Michael Savage are the only two conservatives left in the San Francisco Bay area, so I was surprised to hear her defend this liberal bastion. But it is her livelihood, so I can understand.
She brings up some good points about reporting and producing original news articles. A reporter has to do the investigative footwork to get a story rolling:
As for those who only read their news online, here's a news flash: News stories do not sprout up like Jack's beanstalk on the Internet. To produce news, you need professionals who understand the standards needed to research, report and write on what happened. If newspapers die, reliable information dries up.
Reduced ad revenue and falling newspaper circulation mean that there will be fewer people to cover the same number of stories. In the middle of an economic crisis and President Obama's federal spending bonanza, there will be fewer watchdogs to guard the shop.
I'm with her so far, but she loses me with her defense of the press as it currently stands:
Newspapers are the public's referees as to which information is credible. ...when you read content in a newspaper, you consistently can rely on it.
As every conservative pundit knows, there is a special credibility that comes with being able to say, "as the New York Times reported," or "as the Washington Post reported." Even "as The Chronicle reported."
This is where she goes off track. Dan Rather's forged papers, NY Times' constant trashing of President Bush and Republicans and its eager horn blowing for President Obama and the Democrats have damaged the news media's credibility. That's the problem with newspapers: you can't rely on them. They have lost their exalted position as the reliable public referee.
That is one of the reasons people have eschewed papers for the internet. I know, internet news comes from those same despised newspapers and news organizations, but its a broader field. I'm not restricting myself to only what the San Fran Cornicle wants me to hear; I can go look everywhere and triangulate, picking up some guiding commentary along the way.
I don't think liberal bias is doing in the papers so much as our evolving reading habits. Getting snatches of breaking news throughout the day from the internet fits our lifestyle better than sitting for a half hour with a newspaper that was printed 12 hours ago (an eternity now). Most importantly, its hard to look like you were doing work when the boss catches you with a newspaper.
http://www.realclearpolitics.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96JROHG0&show_article=1
4 comments:
"Most importantly, its hard to look like you were doing work when the boss catches you with a newspaper."
definitely!
in today's world information is everything. the faster the better. printing out the news on paper and delivering it around a city of even the country is a horribly uneconomic way to do it, given the alternatives.
even so, if newpapers (even in paper format) offered something of value over what's available free from thousand's of other on-line sources, they would not be going under. but the fact is, with very few exceptions, they offer nothing of value over the free stuff.
that's what has been called creative destruction. and it makes our world a better place overall.
The republicans are as good as the democrats of trying to blow smoke up our ass. They are as basd with earmarks as the best of them. Wait till Obama vetos the legislation. That would be funny..
Unfortunately, Redneck Ron, I must agree with you, but I doubt the president will veto this bill.
fiddle, You always have agreed with me but never knew it.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.