May 4, 2009

The death of the Boston Globe.

"From the moment the Times Co. purchased The Globe in 1993, it has treated New England's largest newspaper like a cheap whore. It pimped her out for profit during the booming 1990s and then pillaged her when times got tough. It closed her foreign bureaus and cheapened her coverage of everything from the fine arts to the hard sciences."

95 comments:

Christy said...

Oddly, this breaks my heart. I'd found the Globe much more willing to challenge, to do more unbiased investigating than the New York Times in recent years. This surprised me as I'd figured the Globe would have been under the thumb of the Times. Go figure.

Maguro said...

What great theater to see the organized-labor loving NYT play hardball with its own unions.

I want to see Krugman or Herbert write one of their typical pro-union/blame-management screeds on behalf of the Globe's employees.

That'll be the day.

traditionalguy said...

News reporting is a lost art. These days everybody uses an internet for advertised information on search engines and web sites. So without some new market draw to attract new customers, this paper is already dead.

Pogo said...

How many Democrat leaflet makers does one city need?

MadisonMan said...

Capitalism.

Company A buys out competition, keeps it running for a while, then shuts it down. Happens all the time. All those displaced subscribers? The NY Times will chase them down. I guess this is good news for the ProJo too.

Robert Cook said...

Unless a fiancially viable model for internet reporting and news publishing can be developed, the death of newspapers is bad news for us all.

Pogo said...

"Capitalism."

Nope. This was more the underpants gnomes' guide to business success.

Step 1. Buy competition and let it fail.
Step 2. ?
Step 3. Profit!

Pogo said...

"...the death of newspapers is bad news for us all."

The death of newspapers long preceded their financial failure.

EDH said...

See, this what other newspapers will start to say about you once you don't shave every day.

Why did Kurtz ambiguously say that the NYT treated the Globe like a "cheap whore," which could imply either a pimp or a John, rather than say the NYT acted like a pimp?

Clearly, the NYT was more a pimp than a John to the Globe. The Globe's Johns are the liberal Democrtic party establishment.

Fact is, the NYT acted like a pimp and the Globe acted like a cheap whore, in pari delicto.

Meanwhile, the states taxpayers were the neighborhood residents left to pick up the soiled condoms the next day.

Bissage said...

The Globe is nearly dead?

Crap.

There goes my plan to wait out the Greater Depression as a street-corner newsboy.

Sofa King said...

Unless a fiancially viable model for internet reporting and news publishing can be developed, the death of newspapers is bad news for us all.

One of the things that would go a long way to making internet reporting and publishing financially viable is for newspapers to stop selling the same product at massive losses.

Joan said...

The final graph of the linked article: But the Times Co. is also said to be seeking to eliminate seniority rules and lifetime job guarantees for some union members.

Lifetime job guarantees? What are we, communist?

(I know, that's S.O.P. for unions, it just makes my skin crawl.)

Henry Buck said...

It's a conundrum:

Is it worse for the public to be uninformed due to a lack of newspapers, or misinformed by deliberately slanted coverage that pretends to be objective reporting of "facts"?

I'd say being misinformed is worse, because it combines the ignorance of the uninformed with a false certainty that one does, in fact, know what is going on.

That is why I'm cheering the death of the current incarnation of newspapers.

Pogo said...

The Boston Globe isn't dead, it's just pinin' for the fjords.

Joe said...

To stretch the metaphor, let's not forget that the owners of the Globe were pimps.

Paul Zrimsek said...

An independent press is vital to a free society. the next time a national politician needs someone to sit on his military records so he can pretend he's released them, where can he turn?

Trooper York said...

That's one down. Let's hope the Times is next. With the douches they have reporting and running that rag it is only a matter of time.

Unless that Mexican dude buys up the rest of it and fires everyone.

A great day for America.

The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer.

Richard Fagin said...

"Baby wants his toy" blared the caption on the op-ed cartoon aimed at opponents of a ballot measure when Massachusetts voters were asked to decide whether to ban ownership of handguns. Even my all too liberal mother wondered aloud why the Globe was pushing so hard for such a ban. And so the Globe has been at odds with a good portion of its prospetive readership for at least the last 40 years.

Most people seem to have the sense that when GM and Chrysler make cars no one wants to buy, they should rightly go out of business. The Globe has been producing writing too few want to buy and it rightly belongs in the same business trash bin.

I used to jokingly call the Globe "Pravda", but at least the real Pravda had the self awareness that it was an appurtenance of the Communist Party. The Globe had no such self awareness with respect to the Democrats.

Good riddance. Who's on that "ash heap of history" now, Boston Globe, as you made so much mockery of President Reagan when he uttered those words?

Robert Cook said...

"Is it worse for the public to be uninformed due to a lack of newspapers, or misinformed by deliberately slanted coverage that pretends to be objective reporting of "facts"?

"I'd say being misinformed is worse, because it combines the ignorance of the uninformed with a false certainty that one does, in fact, know what is going on.

"That is why I'm cheering the death of the current incarnation of newspapers"
.

I infer, though I may be wrong, that you see too many newspapers today as printing biased reporting that is "liberal" in slant; I, on the other hand, see most daily papers today as being slanted right. It's a conundrum, yes?

The most egregiously blatant example is hardly a real news organ at all--"Fox News"--which presents itself as "Fair and Balanced," (i.e., "objective"), but which is as slanted to the right as can be imagined. A Fox News affiliate in Florida even won a lawsuit against two former reporters who sued them for having fired them unfairly, and the legal decision stated that the news channel had no legal responsibility to present the truth. (See: http://digg.com/world_news/
How_Fox_News_Sued_
for_the_Right_to_Liemand_Won)

As a solution, I suggest that newspapers present themselves outright as leaning to one political orientation or another, then readers may either judge the veracity of the reporting according to their awareness that the paper has a point of view, or may read papers of opposing or varying points of view to synthesize from the multiple presentations of events one's own analysis of the facts.

However, having an overtly stated point of view or not, any news organ should still strive to adhere to the highest standards of reportorial accuracy and verification and double or triple sourcing, etc.

Robert Cook said...

"The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer".

Without either of these, you have no protection against the tyranny of the state.

Christopher said...

For years, the response of the "bow-tied bumkissers of Morrissey Boulevard" (in Howie Carr's trenchant phrase) to any suggestion that their "newspaper" was becoming little more than a DNC daily briefing was "and what will you do, prole? Read the *shudder* 'HERALD?'" - the Boston Herald being the 'conservative' opposition tabloid to the Globe. Although, here in deep blue Massachusetts, 'conservative newspaper' means that they don't always write "George W(ar Criminal) Bush" every time they mention GWB.

And, frankly, the Herald has its problems. It is too much of a Murdoch T&A & gossip sheet. It eschews in-depth reporting for quick, punchy, in-your-gut factoids. Should the Globe go belly up, they will be forced to change their approach radically, or go under themselves.

But just as I wouldn't expect AL or hdhouse or any of the lefties here to shed any tears at the demise of Fox News, neither can I find any sympathy for the anti-conservative, anti-Catholic hatemongers that staff the Globe. I don't expect the paper to die, but (from my mouth to God's ears), should it do so, I will be the first to send a dozen congratulatory roses to Pinch Sulzberger.

In the meantime, I chuckle to myself imagining the future of some of the Globe's idiot columnists: Ellen Goodman embracing her inner cat lady and retreating behind the walls of her feculent, urine-soaked Beacon Hill apartment; James Carroll dressing up in a sheet and funny hat to prance in front of his mirror proclaiming the establishment of the American Catholic Church; and Derrick Jackson standing on a street corner screaming about the evil white man's microwaves controlling his brain.

How apropos that the newspaper which began its decline pimping for JFK ends its career cranking out a fellatory hagiography of Chappaquiddick Ted.

Henry Buck said...

Robert Cook -

You claim that newspapers are biased to the right, then cite a television station as your example? Try harder, but I infer that you are a troll.

On the other hand, if you truly do see newspapers are biased to the right (and don't compare the WSJ opinion section to the "news" reports of major papers), I suspect you are viewing the world through red-colored glasses.

TituslovesUandU2 said...

Young people don't read hard copy newspapers.

My parents live for their morning paper though.

I pinched a loaf and it had whole blueberries in it from my salad last night....thank you.

Trooper York said...

The day we depend on newspapers and lawyers to defend us is the day we will all be slaves. The only thing that stands between us and the government is the Second Amendment which newspapers like the Globe and lawyers want to gut.

Newspapers looking out for me?

That will be the day.

Pogo said...

"Without either of these, you have no protection against the tyranny of the state."

Hardly.
That's what guns are for.

Newspapers are mostly for wrapping fish.

Pogo said...

Oops. That what Trooper said.

Khaaaaaan!

Trooper York said...

Or wiping your windshield.

rocketeer67 said...

Without either of these, you have no protection against the tyranny of the state.

The Second Amendment begs to differ.

Sofa King said...

I infer, though I may be wrong, that you see too many newspapers today as printing biased reporting that is "liberal" in slant; I, on the other hand, see most daily papers today as being slanted right.

How then do you explain, e.g., this?

daredevil-66 said...

Whats that say about the state of newspapers that there aren't enough lefties to support the Boston Globe? They could revinvent themselves into a paper that left its opinions op-ed page and then the rest of the paper carried good reporting using facts. Crazy enough to work.

Pogo said...

The lefty newspapers could fire all its reporters and just make paper logs to burn for fuel.

The folks in tent Obamavilles can keep warm this winter that way.

Trooper York said...

Yeah all the reporters are there. They have the signs that say "Will make shit up for food."

jayne_cobb said...

It should be noted that the WSJ was the only major paper with an uptick in sales in the last year.

Paddy O. said...

"Without either of these, you have no protection against the tyranny of the state."

With these, the state can become a true tyranny.

Big Mike said...

Isn't it interested that the newspapers, who are so rah-rah about union workers when they need votes for their favored Democrat candidates, are so willing to play hardball with their own unions?

The Post itself provoked a strike about a quarter century ago so it could break its own printer union.

It's hard to feel sorry for the alleged journalists who may have to live in a real world and do real work for a living these days. If you ask a journalist why they went into the field they almost always say "to change the world." Well, thanks to them their world is changing.

Robert Cook said...

"The only thing that stands between us and the government is the Second Amendment which newspapers like the Globe and lawyers want to gut".

Wrong. The founders knew that a free nation required a free press to let its citizens know what crimes were being committed by its government, and thereby prevent those crimes or see that their perpetrators were put out and punished. This is why freedom of the press is enshrined in the FIRST amendment. This is not accidental, but intentional.

The right to bear arms allows for the citizenry to join together in militias to defend society, not remain in perpetual individual revolt against it.

Robert Cook said...

"Isn't it interested that the newspapers, who are so rah-rah about union workers when they need votes for their favored Democrat candidates, are so willing to play hardball with their own unions?"

This is because the reporters and editors are--or were once--largely blue collar workers themselves and in sympathy with the unions. But recently, this is less the case, and in any event ignores the fact that it is newspaper management who play hardball with their unions, of which the reporters are members. The reporters are not the newspapers, but are lackeys of their owners, as we all are.

Robert Cook said...

Sofa King said, "How then do you explain, e.g., this?" and linked to a video showing reporters not standing as Bush enters the press room and reporters standing as Obama enters.

I don't know; taken out of context one can't know the circumstances.
I don't, however, dispute that a majority of reporters are personally more liberal than conservative, but their personal opinions do not dictate the slant of their paper or broadcast channel. They must adhere to the standards of their editors, who in turn follow the guidelines of management and the owners...whose interests are served by conservative administrations.

I will say this: no reporter should ever stand for the President, and no citizen, either. The President should bow in humility to us all, for he serves us.

Big Mike said...

I'm sorry, Robert, but do you pop in and out of some alternate universe? In this country, on this planet, the reporters and editors for papers like the NYT and Washington Post are disproportionately graduates of Ivy League schools, and their children are disproportionately likely to be headed off to the Ivies when they graduate from high school (or, very often, private academy). They are not blue collar (unless you count the preppy uniform: khaki slacks, light blue Oxford cloth shirt, navy blazer, Top Sider shoes, and no socks).

Henry Buck said...

Of course, when transformed into a Milwall Brick, even a pussified paper like the Globe becomes a useful weapon.

Robert Cook said...

Big Mike, read more carefully. I said, "This is because the reporters and editors are--or were once--largely blue collar workers themselves and in sympathy with the unions. But recently, this is less the case...".

Yes, reporters today are products of journalism schools, and the old guard of blue collar working class reporters--typied by such names as Mike Royko, Studs Terkel, or Jimmy Breslin--are retiring or dying off, and at one time newspaper reporters were largely, if not wholly, guys from blue collar backgrounds and rarely possessors of college degrees.

Big Mike said...

... and you must be just about the only person who would characterize the ownership of the NYT and Post in terms other than "limousine liberal." Their "interests are served by conservative administrations" only in the sense that they get more opportunity to rant when conservatives are in power and feel constrained to trim their sails when Democrats are in office.

Big Mike said...

@Robert, seriously, have you been abducted by aliens and off planet for a couple decades? It's been at least that long since a Mike Royko would have been hired by a major daily. "Recently this has been less the case"??? For decades this has been not at all the case.

And Jimmy Breslin was a jackass on the best day of his life.

Sofa King said...

They must adhere to the standards of their editors, who in turn follow the guidelines of management and the owners...whose interests are served by conservative administrations.

I just don't see any evidence that this is the case. If what you say is true, then they've been spectacularly unsuccessful at achieving their goals, making them either grossly incompetent or amazingly ineffective.

And what would be your explanation, then, for the fact that the editorial board support Democratic candidates by an overwhelming margin? Your theory just doesn't seem to jibe with the facts.

Robert Cook said...

As a postscript to my reply to Sofa King: I hardly think reporters standing for Obama reveals them to be a cadre of reds, even if it does express a personal preference they may have for him: Obama is not a liberal. At best, he's a lukewarm moderate/centrist. He's "liberal" in rhetoric, as was Bill Clinton, but neither was Clinton a liberal, but merely a political opportunist. I didn't support either of them, but I recognize them both as at least smarter and more capable than Bush, and less driven by malevolent impulses. Not that this made Clinton or makes Obama either one progressives or leaders of the real change that this country needs.

jayne_cobb said...

This is why freedom of the press is enshrined in the FIRST amendment. This is not accidental, but intentional.Ah yes, fun with caps; it makes anything seem serious.

I suppose the simple retort is that the right to bear arms was considered so important that they gave it its VERY OWN amendment.

I don't necessarily agree with that, but it uses similar logic.

Robert Cook said...

Big Mike, I use those names only a signifiers of the legions of reporters just like them whose names we never knew--blue collar working class men (mostly) whose trade was newspapers. Until well toward the end of last century these were the people who populated the majority of newsrooms. And even now, though mostly college-educated, many reporters come from humble backgrounds. I don't assume most reporters who work for the NYTIMES have the same affluent backgrounds as do the Sulzberers, owners of the paper, and in any case the majority of reporters in this country don't work for the Times, but the local papers, small and large, that are disappearing around the country.

Robert Cook said...

Big Mike said, "Their "interests are served by conservative administrations" only in the sense that they get more opportunity to rant when conservatives are in power and feel constrained to trim their sails when Democrats are in office".

Big Mike, Mikey, dude, broheim...come on. Who do you think own newpapers today? Big corporations and tycoons such as Rupert Murdoch. Their financial interests are served by conservative administrations more than they are by so-called "liberal" administrations. Is this really so unclear to you? (I don't recall the last administration that we could really call liberal; Jimmy Carter's, probably. Those since have all been conservative, to greater or lesser degree, by which I mean they see their primary purpose as to maximize the opportunities and benefits available to the already wealthy and to minimize equal access to working people...that is, the vast majority of us.)

AJ Lynch said...

A great day for America is right!

The papers will re-convene - the sports and some local news writers will be hired on with the WSJ or USA Today to provide a new local paper. IMO.

Good riddance to the lib MSM who has hastened their own financial demise.

Palladian said...

You have to understand that to people like "Robert Cook", Barack Obama is the embodiment of right-wing conservative values. Anyone to the right of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov is a dangerous ultraconservative. So when such people say that The New York Times is controlled by "conservative interests", that means that it isn't controlled by Marxist guerllias in Mao suits.

Seven Machos said...

Hey, Robert, maybe international law to which the United States has not submitted can somehow save these vital national treasures! I know you can tell us how.

Palladian said...

"Those since have all been conservative, to greater or lesser degree, by which I mean they see their primary purpose as to maximize the opportunities and benefits available to the already wealthy and to minimize equal access to working people...that is, the vast majority of us.)"

Us? What do you mean us? Real working people don't have time to post long leftist screeds on someone's personal weblog in the middle of the day. Or do you work second shift in the steel mill, Mr Cook?

Kirk Parker said...

I'd sure love to see the particular mincemeat that Royko would have made of the likes of Robert Cook. You could probably sell it on pay-per-view even.

hdhouse said...

Henry Buck said...
It's a conundrum:

Is it worse for the public to be uninformed due to a lack of newspapers, or misinformed by deliberately slanted coverage that pretends to be objective reporting of "facts"?

Oh Henry....we are talking about the Globe here not Faux Noise.

hdhouse said...

Sofa King said...
"And what would be your explanation, then, for the fact that the editorial board support Democratic candidates by an overwhelming margin?"

Intelligence perhaps?

Seven Machos said...

HD -- Who has ever reported objective facts? Ever?

Because some entity in New York claims it does not make it so.

garage mahal said...

The NYT concocted Whitewater on its frontpages and withheld the NSA story in Nov 2004 just to throw the bloodhounds off their trail. MoDo does a good job too about talking about lactating male Democrats. You can't fool us NYT! We're watching. We surround you.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The most egregiously blatant example is hardly a real news organ at all--"Fox News"--which presents itself as "Fair and Balanced," (i.e., "objective"), but which is as slanted to the right as can be imagined

Hey, Robert.... I know it's hard to focus but the topic is newsPAPERS. Their declining circulation and declining ad revenue.

Try to pay attention.

As a solution, I suggest that newspapers present themselves outright as leaning to one political orientation or another, then readers may either judge the veracity of the reporting according to their awareness that the paper has a point of view,

Don't you think that the papers haven't already done this by the examples of writing, editorials and reporting that they have been publishing? Contrary to liberals' opinions, people are not stupid and they CAN read between the lines. They don't like what they have read and are using the free market system to go elsewhere for information. Whether you like it or not.

As to protection from the tyranny of the state, your remark might have some teeth if the newsmedia (ABC NBC CBS CNN and 90% of published papers) weren't willing tools of and shills for the State. They have their lips vapor locked on the Democrats and on Obama's butt. Those who do ask pertinent questions or publish outside the 'party line' are shunned, looked over at these so called news conferences and outright intimidated. There's your tyranny of the state.

Useful idiots indeed.

garage mahal said...

So people aren't stupid and can see liberal media bias and that's why newspapers are losing money. But the same people were duped into voting for Obama because of liberal media bias. That's the theory?

traditionalguy said...

It Looks like Global cooling to room teperature goes on as we speak. There will be justice in Boston at long last.

Seven Machos said...

Garage -- Newspapers are losing money because they are trying to sell a product (and advertising in the product) that they are also giving away for free. They are also losing money because they keep saying they are objective when they are obviously not. Why read pretend-objective that is really opinionated when you can just read unvarnished opinion?

You will note that there is one major newspaper that is making any money. It's not liberal.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So people aren't stupid and can see liberal media bias and that's why newspapers are losing money. But the same people were duped into voting for Obama because of liberal media bias.

I said nothing about people being duped into voting for Obama. It must be nice to live in your own little fantasy world.

Papers are losing subscribers for a lot of reasons.

Firstly, because they are obviously left leaning and not objectively reporting the news. When you get all your major stories from AP or Reuters there is no variation in coverage. When you hand pick only the stories that will fit your "meme" and leave out those that might upset your little apple cart you are not being objective. When you address your product to 50% of the public (liberals) and diss the rest of the public (conservatives) you are going to lose 50% of your market share. Since conservatives are the ones who tend to be more likely to actually read hard copy papers and subscribe, you have really lost more than 50% of your base.

In the past, people didn't notice the bias as much because there were no other sources for news, generally, than your local metro paper or the big 3 television stations. This leads to the second point

When you can go onto the Internet and find multiple renditions of a story showing more than just the 'party line' people begin to realize that they are being fooled, gyped and lied to. Why pay for a subscription to a paper that treats you that way? Why, you can even look at your favorite comic strips on line.

When you can view the news and opinion shows on satellite or cable and see a wide range of opinions, why would you limit yourself to just one newspaper or even a newspaper at all?

Advertisers who buy ads in the papers need to know that there will be enough people who will see their ads to make it worth their while. As circulation drops and advertising becomes more expensive, businesses will try to find other ways to get their advertising out. Craigslist is probably one of the biggest killers of newspaper classified ads along with those FREE weekly shoppers that consist of only classified ads and subsidized by paid advertising.

Until the newspapers realize that their model has changed dramatically and try to serve their function of providing news instead of being a propaganda arm of a particular political party....they are never going to be able to climb out of the hole they have dug for themselves. I don't believe that they are smart enough to make any changes or are unwilling to admit their own faults....so...they are doomed.

AJ Lynch said...

I just thought of a litmus test.

If you see tradegy in a
journalist losing his job, you are probably a liberal.

If you do a little dance, you are probably a conservative.

cokaygne said...

Well, I'm sad to see the Globe go, even though I agree with Christopher about some of the bumholes who write columns for the Globe. I do hope, however, that some smart organization picks up Joan Venocchi and pays her double what Sulzberger pays her.

Any fool can see that Massachusetts is governed by hacks. Both houses of the legislature have veto-proof majorities of hacks. The governor is a semi-hack who is praying that his ole buddy and fellow Axelrod protege will promote him to the judiciary before stuff hits the fan. And then there is Mayor-for-life Mumbles Menino. A strong media are needed to, at least sometimes, watch these clowns before they strip the gold off the dome. To its credit, the Globe took on the archdiocese in a very Catholic town when that archdiocese acted as though it was accountable to no one, not even the little children whom it claimed to serve. I always hoped that one day it would to the same to the arrogant and unaccountable political system.

Afraid I'm part of the problem. I read both the Globe and NYT online every day. It is my personal commitment to the environment by saving all the trees that would be cut down to print newspapers for me, not to mention the tons of CO2 emitted by trucks pulling up to my door and dumping all that paper..

AJ Lynch said...

Geez my spelling lately has been a tradegy (should read tragedy).

Robert Cook said...

"As to protection from the tyranny of the state, your remark might have some teeth if the newsmedia (ABC NBC CBS CNN and 90% of published papers) weren't willing tools of and shills for the State. They have their lips vapor locked on the Democrats and on Obama's butt".

Just as they had their lips locked on the Republicans and Bush's butt, only more so. This is the great failing of the modern press, that they are too willing to accomodate the lies of government instead of challenging them. But this is a function of their ownership by giant corporations whose interest is profits rather than acting as watchdogs of government.

But the first amendment was written by the founders with their knowledge that free republic requires a free press and thus guaranteed the press their freedom. That the press has been corrupted and has squandered that freedom does not mitigate the necessity that a free republic have a true free press. But you Tories who support state authority when wielded by the right wing wouldn't like a truly free press, as they wouldn't have acted as toadies for Bush for the past eight years, and would be advocating ceaselessly now for war crimes prosecutions.

Randy said...

@ AJ Lynch:

If you see tragedy in a
journalist losing his job, you are probably a liberal.

If you do a little dance, you are probably a conservative.
As I do neither, I guess that makes me moderate. Or wishy-washy. Either way, it's a comfortable position. For me.

WRT the imminent demise of the Globe, I imagine the threat is at the moment more evidence of brinkmanship than reality, but that could change quickly. Unions tend to be the last to face the reality that there is no such thing as a guarantee of lifetime employment, usually after the employer folds up shop.

Robert Cook said...

"I just thought of a litmus test.

If you see tradegy in a
journalist losing his job, you are probably a liberal.

If you do a little dance, you are probably a conservative"
.

You're saying here that all conservatives must be halfwits.

I would do a dance if Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin were to lose their jobs; by your standard I must be a conservative. But no, because they're not really journalists, are they? They're just circus geeks eating chicken heads for the edifiction of rubes.

Seven Machos said...

Robert -- Under what statute?

Palladian said...

"Robert -- Under what statute?"

Robert's people make the statutes now.

AJ Lynch said...

Robert:

I was gonna reply that Malkin & Coulter are not journalists, they are opinion pushers.

But then I wondered if there are any true journalists these days?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

But you Tories who support state authority when wielded by the right wing wouldn't like a truly free press, as they wouldn't have acted as toadies for Bush for the past eight years, and would be advocating ceaselessly now for war crimes prosecutions.

With this last statment Robert reveals himself to delusional and no longer worthy of my attention.

If he seriously thinks that the press was a toady for Bush during the past 8 years, he must be living in an alternate universe.

Why in the world would I, as a conservative** be "advocating ceaselessly now for war crimes prosecutions."?

** I know it is hard, but try to wrap your mind around the concept that Conservative /= Republican

AJ Lynch said...

oh shoot, I forgot about Katie Couric- now there is hard-hitting true journalist if you are a libtard.

Or maybe anyone who softly reads the latest news on PBS or NPR.

Randy said...

@Robert Cook:

Coulter & Malkin are not journalists. They are opinion columnists. When arguing a point, it helps to understand the distinction. It appears you do not.

Big Mike said...

I had to go off and do some work for a while.

Hmm, Robert, you wrote "but the first amendment was written by the founders with their knowledge that free republic requires a free press and thus guaranteed the press their freedom. That the press has been corrupted and has squandered that freedom does not mitigate the necessity that a free republic have a true free press." But there's nobody here arguing otherwise.

The problem with the newspaper business is not that there is some vast right wing conspiracy to take them down. It's that they've stopped being something that people want to pay to read. They have a right to print what they want to, and I have a right to not buy them. Seems fair to me.

But as for your far-fetched notion that the newspapers kissed up to the Bush administration, you must be among the deranged few who saw that. What the rest of us saw was a MSM that relentlessly insisted that George W. Bush is a dolt (not hardly!), that he was a puppet of Karl Rove, no it's Dick Cheney, no it's Lon Cheney, no ... Certainly the Washington Post and the NYT were always ready to publish stories that hurt the administration, even if they had to bend the facts a little (or make some up) to do so.

Technically, your assertion that the Washington Post Company and Times are owned by corporations is correct, but essentially both are family-owned and operated institutions, by the Graham and Sulzberger families, respectively. Leadership is held by family members. And I characterize both families as limousine liberals -- with real limousines and not just Volvo station wagons.

Interesting, the Washington Post's web page notes that the late Katherine Graham said that "quality and profitability go hand in hand." Now that their paper is swirling down the toilet, they might consider whether they've gotten away from the quality part of that equation. If they want me to part with 35 cents a day they've got work to do.

AJ Lynch said...

Post is only 35 cents? The Philly paper is 75 cents.

Big Mike said...

@AJ, I've been to Philadelphia and I've bought the Inquirer, but only once. I don't remember how much I paid, and I don't think it was 75 cents, but it was quite a while ago.

The Inquirer wasn't much of a newspaper, that I do remember.

In fact I remember one of their writers gushing all over a young preppy couple starting out and they were renovating a carriage house because of the need to live on the Mainline and in something old -- I guess when you move in preppy circles you gotta do what you gotta do.

Yes, the Post is only 35 cents at the newsstand. But unless you're on business travel to the DC area and can't get the TV schedule otherwise, (or if you need your daily dose of liberal talking points) it's not worth it.

AJ Lynch said...

Mike:

The Philadelphia Inquirer is still not much of a newspaper.

Joe said...

Big Mike hit the nail on the head; the problem with newspapers is they are not delivering a produce people want to buy.

The major problem isn't bias, but that most reporters are dummies who can't research or write. As a group, reporters are the dumbest, most untalented, people out there.

I can't count the times I've watched or read an interview where an opening has been presented and the reporter didn't take it. I used to think this was bias. I now realize its usually because the reporter really didn't see the opening at all, let alone grasp its significance.

It's actually beautiful to see a really good reporter, from whatever political leaning, do their job well.

Robert Cook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...

"they do see the necessity of prosecutions"

Banana republic bullshit.

hdhouse said...

AJ Lynch said...
"Or maybe anyone who softly reads the latest news on PBS or NPR."

Now there ya' go again AJ just being dumb. ... How about we give you a few seconds to re-read that sentence and see if you can "hear" what is just another attempt on your part to be cute but stupid.

NKVD said...

Robert Cook, alien, Nader voter. But I repeat myself.

hdhouse said...

Of course you remember that the number of newspapers endorsing either Bush or Kerry were about equal. Of course you do.

And in 2008, that switched a great deal to 2:1 for Obama. Of course you knew that.

did newspapers suddently grow liberal wings and fly out of the Republican camp? Of course not but you know that.

Did the Democrats have more to offer than the Republicans?

Ya'betcha!

The Globe isn't dying because of ideas or content you morons. It is dying because of advertising revenue. Subscriptions are a break even...but of course you knew that. Advertising is in the tubes and who do we have to thank for the decline in advertising spend brought about by this economy?

Drum roll please.....ta da...enter George the Inferior and his Jester Upright Dick.

You are so afraid of the liberals that you blame them for everything.

Ya'betcha!ass

hdhouse said...

And just another thing...Boston is a fairly "liberal town" in a very "liberal state" in a part of the country that, outside of Maine, has zero republican congresspersons.....and you think that the Globe, if it would have the bias you wish and pray for, wouldn't have a following?

Hey, FauxNoise is an idiot network and idiots much watch them if it stays on the air....seems reasonable.

AJ Lynch said...

Hdhouse the NPR employees tend to "softly read" the news to their audience.

Got it doofus!

Richard Fagin said...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Mr. Cook, the newspapers were Bush toadies for eight years. You can always find someone who really believes that Dan Rather is somewhat to the right of Atilla the Hun.

Complaints about media bias being liberal or statist outnumber those of it being conservative ofr anti-government by at least two to one. If the media really weren't left-biased, the complaints would be roughly equally politically distributed. 'Nuff said.

Oh, wait, that mentioned MATH, sorta kinda. Too much for the average Globe reader. After all, their fawned-upon Newton Public Schools (you wanna talk about liberal nirvana) are having problems with their students scoring on standardized math tests becuase they're too busy teaching the little darlings self esteem. What paper do you think the Newton School Board members read and whose appropation they salivate over?

It's so much fun to hurl rocks at all those damn Commies back home from here in suburban Houston.

Oh, and yeah, Mr. Cook, before you get all snooty and condescending about us toothless rednecks in flyover country...yours truly, Newton South HS class of 1974, MIT class of 1978. This veteran of "Dump the Duke" bumper stickers knows all about it. I know how those folks who escaped over the Berlin wall must have felt.

And Trooper, if you need a lawyer, call me, will ya?

Eric said...

The founders knew that a free nation required a free press to let its citizens know what crimes were being committed by its government, and thereby prevent those crimes or see that their perpetrators were put out and punished.

Sure. So wouldn't you consider the whiffle-ball club there in the White House press room to be a bit derelict in its duties? But don't mind me, I'm just one of those guys who wishes Obama had been vetted as well as Joe the Plumber.

Big Mike said...

@hdhouse, am I afraid of liberals?

Ya'betcha.

I'm afraid of people who display contempt for things like bankruptcy law and contracts and other things that make an economy run.

I'm afraid of people who throw around trillions of dollars on unproven theories. Or, worse, on economic theories that have been amply disproved by experience.

I'm afraid of ignorant people who shout down anyone they disagree with. And by "ignorant" I mean university faculty, professional protesters, students wildly indignant about nearly everything, and bubble-brained CNN reporters.

I'm afraid of people who have a cavalier attitude towards the right of self defense.

Am I afraid of liberals?

Ya'betcha.

My adrenalin is pumping up and the fight or flight reaction has set in.

But I can't run on these crappy old knees.

So I guess you and I gotta fight.

Bring it on, you worthless son of a $2 'ho.

'Cause I'm afraid of you. Ya'bethca.

tjl said...

Let's set aside the schadenfreude for a moment. I'm a former Bostonian and the Globe was an old friend and companion at the breakfast table. In its good days it had thoughtful arts and music coverage in a city where these were taken seriously. It wasn't always the dutiful servant of the Democratic Party, and on occasion would hold the famously corrupt local politicians' feet to the fire.
I hope the reports of its death are premature.

Big Mike said...

@tjl, I used to do a lot of travel to Baaaah-stun back in the day, including back in 1988 when the Massachusetts governor was making a botched run for the presidency.

As I recall, your Herald had the story about how Dukakis's "Massachusetts Miracle" was all built on smoke and mirrors. Surely the Globe had the story too, but refused to print it. Economic events in Massachusetts in 1989 and thereafter suggest that the Herald had it right and the Globe was prostituting itself for your Democrats.

I can feel sorry for a whore dying slowly of AIDS, and that's sort of what's happening to the Globe is it not? But human prostitutes are often forced into the life by circumstances beyond their control, and in the case of teenage runaways there may be physical force. My sympathy for the Globe is tempered by the thought that they consciously and deliberately chose the path they chose.

No, I don't think I'll set aside the schadenfreude just yet.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The Globe isn't dying because of ideas or content you morons. It is dying because of advertising revenue

I suggest you take a course in economics 101.

Advertising revenue is generated when enough people buy the newspaper to provide a return on investment on the advertiser's part. If advertising in the paper is an attractive proposition for the furniture store, grocery store, car dealership etc they will pay a decent price for their ad space.

However, when circulation declines (for whatever reason) the cost of ads must go up because the inches of space are factored by the number of papers sold and the cost of the unionized employees. The advertising costs are the main economic factor that the management of the paper can manipulate quickly, certainly not the union employees or their gold plated benefit packaged.

The progress is:

1. Circulation goes down. Why? Because people don't want to read the left leaning tripe and propoganda put out by the paper

2. Advertising costs increase What used to cost $250.00 to place for a one time run now costs $350 etc

3. Less people are viewing the ads less return on investment

4. Advertisers find other ways to place ads Craigslist. Weekly shoppers. Direct mail. Radio,

5. Ad costs go up even more and papers outsource their advertising to India True story. If you want a custom ad it is just like calling the tech service for your computer. Unintelligble.

6. Paper is getting skimpier and thinner Epic fail.

and so on.

The answer, of course, is to produce a product that is free from bias and does it purported job. Relay the news. Ideology and partisanship won't allow this so. Bhu-bye newspaper.

AJ Lynch said...

DBQ said:
"The answer, of course, is to produce a product that is free from bias and does it purported job. Relay the news. Ideology and partisanship won't allow this so. Bhu-bye newspaper."

Good summary DBQ. It's crazy the lib idiotors resist it.

And we should not fret. Newspapers will be replaced by something new & improved just like the Pony Express, the steamboat an steam engine, the printing press, the typewiter, fountain pens, wooden shoes, water wells, gas lights, outhouses, TV tubes, paisley ties, 8-track tapes, Althouse's 1st husband, etc.

Hell everyone name some more stuff that was replaced by something better.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Hell everyone name some more stuff that was replaced by something better.

Garter belts and nylons for panty hose. (of course that might not be from a man's perspective :-D, but YOU try sitting on those hard garter belt tabs)

Rotary egg beaters/Kitchen Aid Mix Master (although I still keep my rotary hand mixer for when the power goes out and I want whipped cream)

Ice box/refrigerator

floppy disks/DVD

Screwdriver/cordless drill

Commodore Vic 20 (we had one!) Actually the computer you bought last year is already obsolete

theobromophile said...

Garter belts and nylons for panty hose. (of course that might not be from a man's perspective :-D, but YOU try sitting on those hard garter belt tabs)Obviously, you've never been the victim of a "wardrobe malfunction," in which your supposedly stay-up stockings suddenly decide that staying up is overrated, and life would be much more interesting if they were to pool about your knees, thus exposing two inches of red lace to aging judges and legal scholars at a Federalist Society convention.

So when a lady at a lingerie store told me, "Just keep a garter belt in your purse, honey, for emergencies," I just don't think she was talking about having a date go unexpectedly well.