• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Crisis in the US newspaper industry

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Link
BBC NEWS | Americas | Crisis in the US newspaper industry

Quoted from article(He worries that the widespread cost-cutting and possible closures threaten to devalue journalism - and democracy - in America.

"An important and vital part of democracy is vanishing before our very eyes, whether the public realises it or not," he told me.)


Quite how the loss of the printed word on paper devalues either Journalism and or Democracy in America is beyond my understanding.
News stories will continue to be written and read, albeit on the internet.
Democracy (at least what we call Democracy) will continue to be practised in some form or other regardless of whether we read news on the Internet or out of a paper.
As for ( "An important and vital part of democracy is vanishing before our very eyes, whether the public realises it or not,") this strikes me as so much hyperbole.
 
They're worrying about journalism being devalued now?

Corporatized "journalism" still dominates the U.S. media and that's what the author of the article is most worried about. I would hardly call it democratic though. The amount of half-truths and frankly bald faced lies I have seen come out of the corporate sector have made me have more respect for independent journalists in recent years. A lot of important stories that people should know about never appear on network television or in the papers.

Grassroots based journalists will continue to function because such organizations have never relied on a huge budget to get their stories published.
 
I've actually heard that the smaller operations are doing much better than larger ones that have borrowed a lot of money to expand without having an emergency plan. I don't think that refers to the conglomerates like Fox, but there have been a significant number of "larger small" outlets that have run out of business recently (can someone help me with specifics here? I completely forgot the names).
 
Denver lost a legacy when the Rocky Mountain News closed.

They came to be in 1869 and they died in 2009.

It's a travesty.

:/
 
It's not a travesty, it's technology. The newspapers are and have been a dying media source. With the internet being available on your phone, 24/7 cable news coverage and even talk radio, this was inevitable. The writing has been on the wall for quite some time.
 
Link
BBC NEWS | Americas | Crisis in the US newspaper industry

Quoted from article(He worries that the widespread cost-cutting and possible closures threaten to devalue journalism - and democracy - in America.

"An important and vital part of democracy is vanishing before our very eyes, whether the public realises it or not," he told me.)

Yes... it's vital when the press reports news... or when they take a side... they are open about it. This is not the norm.

When Joe the Plumber achieved more in 5-minutes than the AMMP (American Mainstream Media Party / Democrat socialists) achieved in 18-months... it tells you the press sucks pretty bad.

What did they do after Joe strung Obama along and had him reveal who he really is and what he really thinks and wants to do?
Ask Obama about his Tax & Spread the wealth plan?
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Did they ask Obama to explain what Spread the wealth meant... in detail?
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

They attacked Joe. They did more investigative journalism about Joe in three days than they did about Obama for 18-months.

The press is doing their job alright... they are very good propagandists for the leftists.

Losing the papers wouldn't be a loss. It would be a benefit.

We have the internet, radio and TV.

They made their bed... now enjoy a good long... permanent sleep.
The sooner we can say Good-Bye to the rats... the better.


Fineman: 'Mainstream Media Party' is over - Howard Fineman- msnbc.com
 
Last edited:
They're worrying about journalism being devalued now?

Corporatized "journalism" still dominates the U.S. media and that's what the author of the article is most worried about. I would hardly call it democratic though. The amount of half-truths and frankly bald faced lies I have seen come out of the corporate sector have made me have more respect for independent journalists in recent years. A lot of important stories that people should know about never appear on network television or in the papers.

Grassroots based journalists will continue to function because such organizations have never relied on a huge budget to get their stories published.
I wouldn't say it flourishes, certainly in Britain. There are blogs and all that but the vast majority of people get the vast majority of their news and current affairs from large, mass media TV, Radio and Newspaper outlets.

The power of the mass media is very worrying. In Britain Blair often ignored parliament and tried to court the media instead. The discussion over the Iraq war was almost all in the media.
 
Last edited:
The power of the mass media is very worrying. In Britain Blair often ignored parliament and tried to court the media instead. The discussion over the Iraq war was almost all in the media.
Reagan was similar.
When he needed to he went past the media filter directly to the people.

It's about the only time I'll watch CNN or the BBC. Live events where they can't cut out the guts, and can't comment alongside.

How these people butcher the news is pretty incredible. It's why talk radio and the internet are valuable. These mediums fill in the blanks the "press" tries to sweep under the carpet... and time after time they get their knuckles rapped... they still think they can get away with slanting the news without admitting their bias.
 
The power of the mass media is very worrying. In Britain Blair often ignored parliament and tried to court the media instead. The discussion over the Iraq war was almost all in the media.

Indeed. When government wants to, it can just pitch a story to the media and let them contort it in such a way that it gains support. In Canada, the CBC is partially funded by the Canadian Government, and so, it is my belief, that the government tells them what they can and cannot air. I don't know to what extent, but...

Anyway, I think corporatized media, in the least, is controlled by the executives, and if the executives have political ties, it becomes a defacto government news network. All someone from the government has to do is call up an exec. and ask them to pull a story, or pitch a story.
 
Reagan was similar.
When he needed to he went past the media filter directly to the people.

It's about the only time I'll watch CNN or the BBC. Live events where they can't cut out the guts, and can't comment alongside.

How these people butcher the news is pretty incredible. It's why talk radio and the internet are valuable. These mediums fill in the blanks the "press" tries to sweep under the carpet... and time after time they get their knuckles rapped... they still think they can get away with slanting the news without admitting their bias.
That's not what I was saying. I meant Blair appealed to the media and PR and often ignored parliament. Discussions over the possible Iraq war were going on in the media in the summer of 2002 and yet it took until february 2003 for parliament to discuss and vote on it, a discussion that Blair and most ministers absented themselves until the vote may it be added.
 
Good! More liberal rags off the streets. San Franscico is next follwed by the Houston Chronicle and Chicago you are not far off.
 
I think this is sad. I love newspapers and drinking a cup of coffe and reading the paper in the morning. Maybe there are many other better ways of getting news and information but I just like reading an actual paper. I can cheer myself up though thinking how many trees will be saved by this crisis.
 
Good! More liberal rags off the streets. San Franscico is next follwed by the Houston Chronicle and Chicago you are not far off.

The Houston Chronicle is one of the most Conservative papers in the United States, backed Bush in both 2000 and 2004, and was gung ho on the war in Iraq. They did back Obama in 2008, but mainly because McCain was anything but Conservative, and the Chronicle cites McCain's choice of inexperienced Palin as one of the primary reasons it would not endorse McCain. The Chronicle's endorsement of Obama was only the second time in a half century that they endorsed a Democrat.

Years ago, Houston had two papers, the Conservative Houston Chronicle and the Liberal Houston Post. Rupert Murdoch took over the Post, and although he kept its Liberal leaning, attempted to turn it into a tabloid format. Sales of the Post declined. Then the Chronicle bought the Post from Murdoch, and as soon as they gained possession of it, they shut it down, thus becoming the only major newspaper in Houston.

Why do I have the feeling that the only papers you don't regard as "Liberal rags" are the Moonie-owned Washington Times and World Nut Daily?
 
Last edited:
Internet news is a lot more varied and accessible, but it's not much good when your internet service is interrupted.
 
Denver's Rocky Mountain News shuts doors

(CNN) -- After nearly 150 years in business, the Rocky Mountain News published its final edition Friday, the victim of a bad economy and the Internet generation.

The final front-page headline simply says: "Goodbye, Colorado."

"It is with great sadness that we say goodbye to you today. Our time chronicling the life of Denver and Colorado, the nation and the world, is over."

The paper's owner, E.W. Scripps Co., made the announcement to the newsroom at noon Thursday, ending three months of speculation and drama over its fate. The News had been put up for sale in December.

FULL STORY


We'll be seeing a lot more of these.
 
It's interesting how the internet revolution is putting so many industries out of business.

Books, news, music, photo printing, etc. Makes me wonder what would happen if the world ended tomorrow and we no longer had internet. What modern stuff would be left in print for us to look at?!
 
It's interesting how the internet revolution is putting so many industries out of business.

Books, news, music, photo printing, etc. Makes me wonder what would happen if the world ended tomorrow and we no longer had internet. What modern stuff would be left in print for us to look at?!
Well, if the world ended tomorrow, I don't think we would be around to look at something "in print", but here I go again pointing out the obvious. :confused:
 
Well, if the world ended tomorrow, I don't think we would be around to look at something "in print", but here I go again pointing out the obvious. :confused:

Oh it was just a hypothetical. What I meant was, if we've committed so much stuff to the digital realm, if the digital realm ever went under due to catastrophe, a big part of our records would be lost. I guess losing all those blogs and myspace pages wouldn't be so sad though.
 
The Houston Chronicle is one of the most Conservative papers in the United States, backed Bush in both 2000 and 2004, and was gung ho on the war in Iraq. They did back Obama in 2008, but mainly because McCain was anything but Conservative, and the Chronicle cites McCain's choice of inexperienced Palin as one of the primary reasons it would not endorse McCain. The Chronicle's endorsement of Obama was only the second time in a half century that they endorsed a Democrat.

Years ago, Houston had two papers, the Conservative Houston Chronicle and the Liberal Houston Post. Rupert Murdoch took over the Post, and although he kept its Liberal leaning, attempted to turn it into a tabloid format. Sales of the Post declined. Then the Chronicle bought the Post from Murdoch, and as soon as they gained possession of it, they shut it down, thus becoming the only major newspaper in Houston.

Why do I have the feeling that the only papers you don't regard as "Liberal rags" are the Moonie-owned Washington Times and World Nut Daily?

Roll another one! The Chronicle bought the Post one milli-second after the Post bellied up in the late 80's. Think about what you wrote, the Chronicle BACKED Obanana because McCain was "anything but conservative". Right, so they backed Obanana. Damn, that is worth framing. Nearly all papers supported the war in it's initial stages like the majority of democrats.
 
Back
Top Bottom