Quote:
Originally posted by Xugumad
Tony,
I respect your opinion, but this was dreadfully misinformed. Print isn't dead. Print is alive. Much more so than the net. The 'duplicate' papers are financially unviable: the NYT and WP couldn't produce one hundredth of their in-depth reporting through website financing. Where do you think they get all the money from to pay their foreign correspondents, journalists, editors, and freelance writers? It sure as hell isn't from banner ads.
|
I haven't read the WP or the NYT in a long time, but the way the Philadelphia Inquirer gets the money is.... they don't. The Inky's idea of in-depth reporting is fictionalized documentaries (_Blackhawk Down_, _The Hunt For Whazzisname the Drug Dealer_) and the occasional series denigrating "Generation X".
Quote:
The 'better' news from Yahoo or CNN are usually piped straight from Reuters or the Associated Press, without any perspective or background.
|
Which is to say, without any spin. The Washington Post certainly showed its roots as a Democratic Party organ when I used to read it; it was less biased in the opinion section than the front page. And then they had an "Ombudsman" who simply made excuses for the paper's shortcomings. Blech.
Quote:
News on TV is dead. Their agenda is to sell advertising minutes, not to inform. Quality papers have an audience that's slightly more traditional: people who buy US Today might watch Fox News, and that's all fine and dandy. But if you read the NY Times, you may as well try to see if your cable package offers BBC World News.
|
News in print is there to fill the holes between the advertisements. The places for the stories are called "news holes", after all.