The American Newspaper is Dead and it’s a Good Thing

[PaintMyHouse]

I doubt the political thinkers who set up limited government and held individual liberty as paramount would see much liberalism in the almost unlimited government (at every level) and the increasing restrictions on individual liberty that we have today.

This part right here, "...and held individual liberty as paramount...", is very untrue. They set up a limited government that kept the common people away from the levers of power, intentionally.

Anarchy is all about Individual Liberty, and that is not what they created. They also expected us to create a new form of government when their version no longer served us well. We do that incrementally now and that wouldn't bother them. What would bother them is that we are so stupid and lazy about solving our issues.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The 1780s definition of liberalism is not the 2010s definition of liberalism.

Liberalism is the same but times changes. The Founders knew that so why don't you?

And the previous definition for "consersative" was to keep the status quo and resist change.
"""con·serv·a·tive
kənˈsərvətiv/
adjective
1. holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion."""


Now it stands for anti-abortion, anti-immigration reform, pro-Wall Street corruption and anti-middle class.

 

[Steven_R]

I doubt the political thinkers who set up limited government and held individual liberty as paramount would see much liberalism in the almost unlimited government (at every level) and the increasing restrictions on individual liberty that we have today.

This part right here, "...and held individual liberty as paramount...", is very untrue. They set up a limited government that kept the common people away from the levers of power, intentionally.

Anarchy is all about Individual Liberty, and that is not what they created. They also expected us to create a new form of government when their version no longer served us well. We do that incrementally now and that wouldn't bother them. What would bother them is that we are so stupid and lazy about solving our issues.

There you have it folks. Not being controlled by cradle to grave government is anarchy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I doubt the political thinkers who set up limited government and held individual liberty as paramount would see much liberalism in the almost unlimited government (at every level) and the increasing restrictions on individual liberty that we have today.

This part right here, "...and held individual liberty as paramount...", is very untrue. They set up a limited government that kept the common people away from the levers of power, intentionally.

Anarchy is all about Individual Liberty, and that is not what they created. They also expected us to create a new form of government when their version no longer served us well. We do that incrementally now and that wouldn't bother them. What would bother them is that we are so stupid and lazy about solving our issues.

There you have it folks. Not being controlled by cradle to grave government is anarchy.

Not what I said now is it, but it explains why you believe in nonsense that ignores history and common sense.

 

[mamooth]

Newspapers are liberal?

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ... ever looked at USA Today or any of the Gannett rags, which cover much of the nation? All nice bland conservatism. It's the conservative formula for newspapers. Take over, fire all the reporters (they cost money), drop most local coverage, and just reprint the national USA Today garbage.

 

[sameech]

The Dims are counting on illegal aliens to keep them in the majority, but they're main powerbase is evaporating from underneath them:

The American Newspaper is Dead and it?s a Good Thing | FrontPage Magazine

That doesn’t mean that the Great Booming Voice of Media Liberalism is dead. But it does mean that it is losing much of its authority. Its credibility numbers are poor and it’s increasingly relying on shrillness and volume. That has worked so far. It certainly has helped Obama, but on the internet, relying too much on volume is risky.

The same barriers that entrenched liberal media authority in print and on television and radio are much weaker on the internet. Here they can lose. The media’s adaptation to the internet has largely robbed it of its intellectual and moral authority. Its sites have more money and attract bigger advertisers, but those may only be temporary advantages.

The death of the American newspaper may forecast the death of American liberalism.​

I hope you realize that what the graph tells you is that "digital and other" revenue is about 1/3 of what print revenue is. If the print goes away, so will the newspapers themselves for all intents and purposes. People on the internet do not like to pay for content and advertisers don't want to pay as much for ads.

 

[shart_attack]

We should repeal Freedom of the Press clause from the 1st Amendment. They don't advocate for the People, they are lapdogs to the Democrat Party and liberal causes. After 6 years, they haven't found one scandal in the Obama regime to report.

The hallmark of conservatism.

Right here.

Right on.

Viet Nam would have been an endless war, General Westmoreland would have gotten away with the My Lai massacre, Nixon would have never been connected to Watergate and stayed in office, and Bush and Cheney could have kept Bin Laden a secret and blamed 9/11 on Saddam Hussein if it hadn't been for the goddamn free press.

Conservatives are like mushrooms. They want to live in the dark and eat shit that's shoveled to them through a hole, called Fox News.

Vietnam is not two words.

Now, you were saying, Copernicus?

 

[healthmyths]

The American Newspaper is Dead and it’s a Good Thing

The dumbing down of America makes the cons so happy....because it's easier to herd sheep than intelligent people. Speak like a con....Baaaaaaaa!

Do you see any problem in the following statistic?
"When 1,160 (85%) of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008,
according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters | The Daily Caller

 

[Camp]

The hallmark of conservatism.

Right here.

Right on.

Viet Nam would have been an endless war, General Westmoreland would have gotten away with the My Lai massacre, Nixon would have never been connected to Watergate and stayed in office, and Bush and Cheney could have kept Bin Laden a secret and blamed 9/11 on Saddam Hussein if it hadn't been for the goddamn free press.

Conservatives are like mushrooms. They want to live in the dark and eat shit that's shoveled to them through a hole, called Fox News.

Vietnam is not two words.

Now, you were saying, Copernicus?

Viet Nam and Vietnam are both acceptable. Nam Viet is technically the more accurate translation of Nan Yue which becomes Nam Viet. The Yue were people of southern China and the northern part of what is known as Vietnam. The word nan or nam means south. So, Nan Yue means the southern people of the region of Yue people, Nam Viet. South Vietnam is translated to viet south people in south and North Vietnam translated to viet south people of north.

 

[Flopper]

Funny you should mention that.
I was just telling my mother this morning that the Houston Chronicle was a piece of shit.
The only thing worth reading in it are the sports and comics.

Here's the thing though. We use to have two papers in Houston,the Chronicle and the Post.
The Post being liberal and the Chronicle being conservative. Eventually the Chronicle put the Post out of business,and what does the Chronicle do? It goes liberal. They are now dying as well...good riddance.

Technology and economics have made most newspapers irrelevant in regard to news reporting. In the battle for survival, they have morphed into useless rags with no real purpose. Yet, we don't have a good replacement. Television news is packaged to entertain, not inform; radio is a joke, a platform for political commentators and preachers. The internet is a homogenized blend of real news, commentary, advertising, misrepresentations, and out right lies. I heard someone say recently that there has never been a time when people were better informed, or was that misinformed.

 

[Sallow]

The 1780s definition of liberalism is not the 2010s definition of liberalism.

There's some truth to this.

The Liberals of 1780 were vastly different then the Liberals of today.

The Liberals of 1780 tolerated slavery and held that women were unable to make political decisions so they would not have the vote. They also believed white land owners should be the only ones holding political power.

The Liberals of today evolved from those and many other positions.

Conservatives? Not so much.

 

[jasonnfree]

We should repeal Freedom of the Press clause from the 1st Amendment. They don't advocate for the People, they are lapdogs to the Democrat Party and liberal causes. After 6 years, they haven't found one scandal in the Obama regime to report.

One scandal worth reporting that is.

 

[Edgetho]

It's funny, but if you look at newspapers from a century ago, they had the same kind of slanted reporting they do today, but still provided longer and more in depth articles. Articles were written for a more literate people and provided far more information than they do today. Instead of snippets of speeches, the entire speech was printed.

If you have a few minute on day, go to you local library and look at some microfilmed newspapers and compare it to what's in your paper today.

That is partially true but you're omitting one important factor..... There were five times as many newspapers, each with its own POV.

One might be hard-core dimocrap, another devoted to Conservatism, another devoted to the Worker, another completely in the hip pocket of business.

ALL in the same small to medium sized community.

So one could call FDR a complete and utter scumbag and another, in the same community, would protect him with the fervor of of the King's Guards.

IOW, it balance out.

Nowadays, there is only one Newspaper per City as a rule. Even in New Yawk, there's still the one big dog in pack.... The New Yawk Slimes. And the Slimes doesn't just dominate news in New Yawk, it dominates Newspapers, TV and the rest of the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM in the Country.

There's no competition anymore. No competing views. And people haven't just been disgusted by certain papers, they're disgusted with the whole idea of newspapers.

Make sense? The libturd idiots in the DISGUSTING FILTH of the LSM haven't just killed liberal newspapers, they've killed pretty much all of them.

Except for the WSJ. And even they're not that Conservative anymore.

Didja know, that until relatively recently, the WSJ never had a Photograph in its paper?

A History of Wall Street Journal Hedcuts - WSJ.com

True fact.

 

[bripat9643]

We should repeal Freedom of the Press clause from the 1st Amendment. They don't advocate for the People, they are lapdogs to the Democrat Party and liberal causes. After 6 years, they haven't found one scandal in the Obama regime to report.

One scandal worth reporting that is.

From the viewpoint of Obama's lapdog media, no scandal involving Obama is worth reporting. How would that help destroy freedom and capitalism?

 

[Flopper]

It's funny, but if you look at newspapers from a century ago, they had the same kind of slanted reporting they do today, but still provided longer and more in depth articles. Articles were written for a more literate people and provided far more information than they do today. Instead of snippets of speeches, the entire speech was printed.

If you have a few minute on day, go to you local library and look at some microfilmed newspapers and compare it to what's in your paper today.

That is partially true but you're omitting one important factor..... There were five times as many newspapers, each with its own POV.

One might be hard-core dimocrap, another devoted to Conservatism, another devoted to the Worker, another completely in the hip pocket of business.

ALL in the same small to medium sized community.

So one could call FDR a complete and utter scumbag and another, in the same community, would protect him with the fervor of of the King's Guards.

IOW, it balance out.

Nowadays, there is only one Newspaper per City as a rule. Even in New Yawk, there's still the one big dog in pack.... The New Yawk Slimes. And the Slimes doesn't just dominate news in New Yawk, it dominates Newspapers, TV and the rest of the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM in the Country.

There's no competition anymore. No competing views. And people haven't just been disgusted by certain papers, they're disgusted with the whole idea of newspapers.

Make sense? The libturd idiots in the DISGUSTING FILTH of the LSM haven't just killed liberal newspapers, they've killed pretty much all of them.

Except for the WSJ. And even they're not that Conservative anymore.

Didja know, that until relatively recently, the WSJ never had a Photograph in its paper?

A History of Wall Street Journal Hedcuts - WSJ.com

True fact.

Starting in the mid 20th century, newspapers began buying out their competition. I remember in my hometown the morning paper bought out the evening paper, eliminating competition and slashing production costs. They promised to maintain the same policies with regard to reporting and editorials. By the time the Internet became a threat, those promises were long forgoten. The two newspapers became one. Most of the news staff was eliminated leaving only a skeleton staff of reporters. About 90% of their articles are now picked up off the net or contributions from locals.

I really miss real newspapers. They organized news making it quick and easy to read. They did a pretty good job of separating news from opinion, something most Internet news sites don't do. However, I think the real lost is in smaller cities where there is no real newspaper, no in depth coverage of city council and school board meetings and no local investigative reporting.

 

[sameech]

Starting in the mid 20th century, newspapers began buying out their competition. I remember in my hometown the morning paper bought out the evening paper, eliminating competition and slashing production costs. They promised to maintain the same policies with regard to reporting and editorials. By the time the Internet became a threat, those promises were long forgoten. The two newspapers became one. Most of the news staff was eliminated leaving only a skeleton staff of reporters. About 90% of their articles are now picked up off the net or contributions from locals.

I really miss real newspapers. They organized news making it quick and easy to read. They did a pretty good job of separating news from opinion, something most Internet news sites don't do. However, I think the real lost is in smaller cities where there is no real newspaper, no in depth coverage of city council and school board meetings and no local investigative reporting.

That is more or less what happened in my city except it was in the 80's I think when the morning and afternoon papers "merged" into a morning only paper. They were operated by rivals within the same family interesting enough.

Our local paper cries about the internet, but that is not why they are losing business left and right. They are being boxed out by a weekly free paper that is sucking up their ad revenue at half the price of the daily paper, a larger audience, and are focused on expanding into things that the readers most value--free obituaries (the regular paper charges $150/day for an obit) , ads, coupons, humor & tips, classifieds (many of which are free or a lot cheaper), crime reports and stories of local interest only.

 

[g5000]

Yeah, who needs newspapers? That whole confirmation of the facts by at least two sources thing was a huge pain in the ass. I'm so glad hack partisans can manufacture bullshit at will now. It has greatly enhanced the political landscape.

Standards? Obectivity? Who needs that shit when the mindless minions are lining up to drink your piss? We're missing out on pop-up ad revenues, man! And if we don't do it, someone else will.

You can pick up your Human Growth Hormones at 20 percent off by calling 1-800-IMA-RUBE.

 

[g5000]

It's funny, but if you look at newspapers from a century ago, they had the same kind of slanted reporting they do today, but still provided longer and more in depth articles. Articles were written for a more literate people and provided far more information than they do today. Instead of snippets of speeches, the entire speech was printed.

If you have a few minute on day, go to you local library and look at some microfilmed newspapers and compare it to what's in your paper today.

That is partially true but you're omitting one important factor..... There were five times as many newspapers, each with its own POV.

One might be hard-core dimocrap, another devoted to Conservatism, another devoted to the Worker, another completely in the hip pocket of business.

ALL in the same small to medium sized community.

So one could call FDR a complete and utter scumbag and another, in the same community, would protect him with the fervor of of the King's Guards.

IOW, it balance out.

Nowadays, there is only one Newspaper per City as a rule. Even in New Yawk, there's still the one big dog in pack.... The New Yawk Slimes. And the Slimes doesn't just dominate news in New Yawk, it dominates Newspapers, TV and the rest of the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM in the Country.

There's no competition anymore. No competing views. And people haven't just been disgusted by certain papers, they're disgusted with the whole idea of newspapers.

Make sense? The libturd idiots in the DISGUSTING FILTH of the LSM haven't just killed liberal newspapers, they've killed pretty much all of them.

Except for the WSJ. And even they're not that Conservative anymore.

Didja know, that until relatively recently, the WSJ never had a Photograph in its paper?

A History of Wall Street Journal Hedcuts - WSJ.com

True fact.

The Wall Street Journal was sold a couple years ago to the same conglomerate that brings you Fox News.

 

[Flopper]

Starting in the mid 20th century, newspapers began buying out their competition. I remember in my hometown the morning paper bought out the evening paper, eliminating competition and slashing production costs. They promised to maintain the same policies with regard to reporting and editorials. By the time the Internet became a threat, those promises were long forgoten. The two newspapers became one. Most of the news staff was eliminated leaving only a skeleton staff of reporters. About 90% of their articles are now picked up off the net or contributions from locals.

I really miss real newspapers. They organized news making it quick and easy to read. They did a pretty good job of separating news from opinion, something most Internet news sites don't do. However, I think the real lost is in smaller cities where there is no real newspaper, no in depth coverage of city council and school board meetings and no local investigative reporting.

That is more or less what happened in my city except it was in the 80's I think when the morning and afternoon papers "merged" into a morning only paper. They were operated by rivals within the same family interesting enough.

Our local paper cries about the internet, but that is not why they are losing business left and right. They are being boxed out by a weekly free paper that is sucking up their ad revenue at half the price of the daily paper, a larger audience, and are focused on expanding into things that the readers most value--free obituaries (the regular paper charges $150/day for an obit) , ads, coupons, humor & tips, classifieds (many of which are free or a lot cheaper), crime reports and stories of local interest only.

As ad revenues shrank, newspapers had no choice but to raise subscription prices which reduced readership and thus reduces ad revenue. The newspapers as we once knew them are dead and there really is no good replacement.