• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is the MSM out of it?

The leaders of major media persist in ignoring their eroding influence
Sunday, February 13, 2005

When the Web logger Laer ("Cheat Seeking Missiles") called to cancel his 25-year subscription to the Los Angeles Times last Monday, he was made an extraordinary offer. The circulation service rep, detecting that he was fed up with the paper's liberal bias, offered to sell him the newspaper without the news sections. Laer was thunderstruck.

"How often must the beleaguered circulation department ... be dealing with calls like mine, for them to come up with a special like this?" he wrote. (On Wednesday, an LA Times exec wrote back, denying that the Times sells partial copies of the paper, but thanking Laer "for bringing this to our attention.")

Hundreds of readers cancelled their subscriptions to The Philadelphia Inquirer during the election campaign, and the paper had its editors make calls to try to lure them back.

Since the primary reason given for the cancellations was the Inquirer's 21 straight days of editorials praising John Kerry and attacking President Bush, it's doubtful those who wrote the editorials will be effective wooers.

A controversy you've probably heard about, and one that many people haven't, illustrate why readers cancel subscriptions.

"It's fun to shoot some people," Lt. Gen. James Mattis said at a conference in San Diego on Feb. 1. "You go into Afghanistan, you've got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. Guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway, so it's a helluva lot of fun to shoot them."

Mattis' remarks caused conniption fits throughout the news media. Typical was the Miami Herald, which said Mattis should have been given a tougher punishment than the verbal reprimand he received from the commandant of the Marine Corps. "His callous remarks make light of the terrible toll of war," the Herald whined.

Mattis -- arguably our most effective combat leader -- already has been ably defended by my friends Ralph Peters and Mac Owens. But I enthusiastically second his sentiment. If I were still a young Marine, I would take enormous pleasure in personally sending Islamofascists to hell.

Journalists who got their panties twisted over Mattis apparently see nothing newsworthy about having the executive vice president and head of news for CNN accuse the U.S. military of deliberately killing journalists.

Eason Jordan, who resigned Friday, told a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that "he knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who was there, and demanded proof, which Jordan could not supply.

The Davos confab ended Jan. 30. Many journalists were there. Yet in my column published last Sunday, I became the first "mainstream" journalist to mention Jordan's remarks.

If what Jordan said were true, it would be a bigger scandal than Abu Ghraib, about which we in the media have made sure you have heard. And if CNN's top news executive slandered U.S. troops, that also is -- or ought to be --news.

Washington Post media analyst Howard Kurtz finally wrote something on Feb. 7. Kurtz omitted eyewitness testimony from Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.; he reported panel moderator David Gergen as saying something quite different from what he told columnist Michelle Malkin, and skipped over suppression of a videotape of the discussion.

Kurtz also failed to mention he has a show on CNN. "If a PR agent or damage control spinner produced a piece designed to try and save CNN exec Eason Jordan's job, it would be the piece Kurtz wrote," said Web logger and former Democratic political operative Mickey Kaus.

Until Friday's resignation the mainstream news networks had ignored the controversy.

The editor of the Post-Gazette recently held a discussion with staff about the future of the news business, and the topic of Web logs naturally emerged. The consensus seemed to be that we needn't worry much about them, because we report the news and bloggers only offer their opinions. But the Eason Jordan story was brought to our attention by a Web logger, and it was other bloggers who uncovered earlier remarks by Jordan in the same vein. Seems like reporting to me.

The earth rumbles, and we think it's our big feet, stomping the Lilliputians. But what if it's an earthquake about to swallow us up?

So the question becomes - will the MSM(especially newspapers) wake up and identify their own failings or will they continue to be ripped to shreds by the "new media" in blogging and internet news?

My thoughts are that they are going to stonewall for a few more years. They might be able to last another 4 years but I feel there has to be a wakeup session soon or they risk looking like Rather and CBS with egg all over their face for refusing to accept reality.

CsG
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The leaders of major media persist in ignoring their eroding influence
Sunday, February 13, 2005

When the Web logger Laer ("Cheat Seeking Missiles") called to cancel his 25-year subscription to the Los Angeles Times last Monday, he was made an extraordinary offer. The circulation service rep, detecting that he was fed up with the paper's liberal bias, offered to sell him the newspaper without the news sections. Laer was thunderstruck.

"How often must the beleaguered circulation department ... be dealing with calls like mine, for them to come up with a special like this?" he wrote. (On Wednesday, an LA Times exec wrote back, denying that the Times sells partial copies of the paper, but thanking Laer "for bringing this to our attention.")

Hundreds of readers cancelled their subscriptions to The Philadelphia Inquirer during the election campaign, and the paper had its editors make calls to try to lure them back.

Since the primary reason given for the cancellations was the Inquirer's 21 straight days of editorials praising John Kerry and attacking President Bush, it's doubtful those who wrote the editorials will be effective wooers.

A controversy you've probably heard about, and one that many people haven't, illustrate why readers cancel subscriptions.

"It's fun to shoot some people," Lt. Gen. James Mattis said at a conference in San Diego on Feb. 1. "You go into Afghanistan, you've got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. Guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway, so it's a helluva lot of fun to shoot them."

Mattis' remarks caused conniption fits throughout the news media. Typical was the Miami Herald, which said Mattis should have been given a tougher punishment than the verbal reprimand he received from the commandant of the Marine Corps. "His callous remarks make light of the terrible toll of war," the Herald whined.

Mattis -- arguably our most effective combat leader -- already has been ably defended by my friends Ralph Peters and Mac Owens. But I enthusiastically second his sentiment. If I were still a young Marine, I would take enormous pleasure in personally sending Islamofascists to hell.

Journalists who got their panties twisted over Mattis apparently see nothing newsworthy about having the executive vice president and head of news for CNN accuse the U.S. military of deliberately killing journalists.

Eason Jordan, who resigned Friday, told a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that "he knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who was there, and demanded proof, which Jordan could not supply.

The Davos confab ended Jan. 30. Many journalists were there. Yet in my column published last Sunday, I became the first "mainstream" journalist to mention Jordan's remarks.

If what Jordan said were true, it would be a bigger scandal than Abu Ghraib, about which we in the media have made sure you have heard. And if CNN's top news executive slandered U.S. troops, that also is -- or ought to be --news.

Washington Post media analyst Howard Kurtz finally wrote something on Feb. 7. Kurtz omitted eyewitness testimony from Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.; he reported panel moderator David Gergen as saying something quite different from what he told columnist Michelle Malkin, and skipped over suppression of a videotape of the discussion.

Kurtz also failed to mention he has a show on CNN. "If a PR agent or damage control spinner produced a piece designed to try and save CNN exec Eason Jordan's job, it would be the piece Kurtz wrote," said Web logger and former Democratic political operative Mickey Kaus.

Until Friday's resignation the mainstream news networks had ignored the controversy.

The editor of the Post-Gazette recently held a discussion with staff about the future of the news business, and the topic of Web logs naturally emerged. The consensus seemed to be that we needn't worry much about them, because we report the news and bloggers only offer their opinions. But the Eason Jordan story was brought to our attention by a Web logger, and it was other bloggers who uncovered earlier remarks by Jordan in the same vein. Seems like reporting to me.

The earth rumbles, and we think it's our big feet, stomping the Lilliputians. But what if it's an earthquake about to swallow us up?

So the question becomes - will the MSM(especially newspapers) wake up and identify their own failings or will they continue to be ripped to shreds by the "new media" in blogging and internet news?

My thoughts are that they are going to stonewall for a few more years. They might be able to last another 4 years but I feel there has to be a wakeup session soon or they risk looking like Rather and CBS with egg all over their face for refusing to accept reality.

CsG

Republicans :roll:
 
Been drinkin', CsG?

One guy in LA, and a few hundred in Philly don't exactly define a movement, now do they? What you're describing is one thing, what you want it to be is merely wishful thinking...
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The leaders of major media persist in ignoring their eroding influence
Sunday, February 13, 2005

When the Web logger Laer ("Cheat Seeking Missiles") called to cancel his 25-year subscription to the Los Angeles Times last Monday, he was made an extraordinary offer. The circulation service rep, detecting that he was fed up with the paper's liberal bias, offered to sell him the newspaper without the news sections. Laer was thunderstruck.

"How often must the beleaguered circulation department ... be dealing with calls like mine, for them to come up with a special like this?" he wrote. (On Wednesday, an LA Times exec wrote back, denying that the Times sells partial copies of the paper, but thanking Laer "for bringing this to our attention.")

Hundreds of readers cancelled their subscriptions to The Philadelphia Inquirer during the election campaign, and the paper had its editors make calls to try to lure them back.

Since the primary reason given for the cancellations was the Inquirer's 21 straight days of editorials praising John Kerry and attacking President Bush, it's doubtful those who wrote the editorials will be effective wooers.

A controversy you've probably heard about, and one that many people haven't, illustrate why readers cancel subscriptions.

"It's fun to shoot some people," Lt. Gen. James Mattis said at a conference in San Diego on Feb. 1. "You go into Afghanistan, you've got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. Guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway, so it's a helluva lot of fun to shoot them."

Mattis' remarks caused conniption fits throughout the news media. Typical was the Miami Herald, which said Mattis should have been given a tougher punishment than the verbal reprimand he received from the commandant of the Marine Corps. "His callous remarks make light of the terrible toll of war," the Herald whined.

Mattis -- arguably our most effective combat leader -- already has been ably defended by my friends Ralph Peters and Mac Owens. But I enthusiastically second his sentiment. If I were still a young Marine, I would take enormous pleasure in personally sending Islamofascists to hell.

Journalists who got their panties twisted over Mattis apparently see nothing newsworthy about having the executive vice president and head of news for CNN accuse the U.S. military of deliberately killing journalists.

Eason Jordan, who resigned Friday, told a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that "he knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who was there, and demanded proof, which Jordan could not supply.

The Davos confab ended Jan. 30. Many journalists were there. Yet in my column published last Sunday, I became the first "mainstream" journalist to mention Jordan's remarks.

If what Jordan said were true, it would be a bigger scandal than Abu Ghraib, about which we in the media have made sure you have heard. And if CNN's top news executive slandered U.S. troops, that also is -- or ought to be --news.

Washington Post media analyst Howard Kurtz finally wrote something on Feb. 7. Kurtz omitted eyewitness testimony from Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.; he reported panel moderator David Gergen as saying something quite different from what he told columnist Michelle Malkin, and skipped over suppression of a videotape of the discussion.

Kurtz also failed to mention he has a show on CNN. "If a PR agent or damage control spinner produced a piece designed to try and save CNN exec Eason Jordan's job, it would be the piece Kurtz wrote," said Web logger and former Democratic political operative Mickey Kaus.

Until Friday's resignation the mainstream news networks had ignored the controversy.

The editor of the Post-Gazette recently held a discussion with staff about the future of the news business, and the topic of Web logs naturally emerged. The consensus seemed to be that we needn't worry much about them, because we report the news and bloggers only offer their opinions. But the Eason Jordan story was brought to our attention by a Web logger, and it was other bloggers who uncovered earlier remarks by Jordan in the same vein. Seems like reporting to me.

The earth rumbles, and we think it's our big feet, stomping the Lilliputians. But what if it's an earthquake about to swallow us up?

So the question becomes - will the MSM(especially newspapers) wake up and identify their own failings or will they continue to be ripped to shreds by the "new media" in blogging and internet news?

My thoughts are that they are going to stonewall for a few more years. They might be able to last another 4 years but I feel there has to be a wakeup session soon or they risk looking like Rather and CBS with egg all over their face for refusing to accept reality.

CsG

Republicans :roll:

:thumbsup:

ROTFLMAO

😉

 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So the question becomes - will the MSM(especially newspapers) wake up and identify their own failings or will they continue to be ripped to shreds by the "new media" in blogging and internet news?

My thoughts are that they are going to stonewall for a few more years. They might be able to last another 4 years but I feel there has to be a wakeup session soon or they risk looking like Rather and CBS with egg all over their face for refusing to accept reality.

CsG
So what's your point? That the MSM must become conservative? Or better yet, "fair and balanced" like FNC? Or what?
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So the question becomes - will the MSM(especially newspapers) wake up and identify their own failings or will they continue to be ripped to shreds by the "new media" in blogging and internet news?

My thoughts are that they are going to stonewall for a few more years. They might be able to last another 4 years but I feel there has to be a wakeup session soon or they risk looking like Rather and CBS with egg all over their face for refusing to accept reality.

CsG
So what's your point? That the MSM must become conservative? Or better yet, "fair and balanced" like FNC? Or what?


Who said anything about left or right?:roll: But atleast your response was sort of on topic.

No, my point was that the MSM needs to get back to reporting the news - not playing games with it or fitting "news" into their "stories". The "new media" is here to stay so the MSM better wise up to the fact that they are being watched(by all sides) and the truth will be outed in short order.

CsG
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, my point was that the MSM needs to get back to reporting the news - not playing games with it or fitting "news" into their "stories". The "new media" is here to stay so the MSM better wise up to the fact that they are being watched(by all sides) and the truth will be outed in short order.
Well, clearly Internet news sites and particularly, blogs, can be just as biased, if not moreso than the MSM. Why aren't you pressing for reforms in that arena too?

 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, my point was that the MSM needs to get back to reporting the news - not playing games with it or fitting "news" into their "stories". The "new media" is here to stay so the MSM better wise up to the fact that they are being watched(by all sides) and the truth will be outed in short order.
Well, clearly Internet news sites and particularly, blogs, can be just as biased, if not moreso than the MSM. Why aren't you pressing for reforms in that arena too?

If a blog was trying to claim it was unbiased -then sure, but they aren't. The MSM(the "4th estate") tries to claim it is unbiased.

I guess with the support the MSM is getting here from you guys - my prediction of more stonewalling will come true. Sooner or later though the reality of the crumbling wall with hit them...

CsG
 
This from someone who criticizes the use of bloggers or nonMSM news sites as information sources. :roll:

 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
If a blog was trying to claim it was unbiased -then sure, but they aren't. The MSM(the "4th estate") tries to claim it is unbiased.
It sounds like you're making a lot of sweeping generalizations: Blogs aren't claiming their unbiased and the MSM is? Are you just making this up as you go along?

I guess with the support the MSM is getting here from you guys - my prediction of more stonewalling will come true. Sooner or later though the reality of the crumbling wall with hit them...
It's not so much "support" as just wondering what your point is precisely.
 
There are more independant checks and balances in the blog world. It is much more difficult to reign everyone in to follow the same creed. On the other hand, the large media outlets have the power to shape news and how it is presented. They can in most instances also spin the news in their defense if necessary. so, in this way, blogs are a more perfect source of real news and commentary. Not to mention, most bloggers tend to be forward with their particula alignment - most major news sources simply, and laughably claim to be balanced - when most of the evidence show otherwise.
 
Newspaper is a dead medium with the Internet, IMO. So selling out to appease the rightwing critics is not going to solve the problem, but may just accelerate it.
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Newspaper is a dead medium with the Internet, IMO. So selling out to appease the rightwing critics is not going to solve the problem, but may just accelerate it.

Notice how you on the left here continue to think this is a left vs right issue - it's not. Try focusing on the issue at hand instead of your left/right whining. There are leftist bloggers out there just like right-wing bloggers.

CsG
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
If a blog was trying to claim it was unbiased -then sure, but they aren't. The MSM(the "4th estate") tries to claim it is unbiased.
It sounds like you're making a lot of sweeping generalizations: Blogs aren't claiming their unbiased and the MSM is? Are you just making this up as you go along?

I guess with the support the MSM is getting here from you guys - my prediction of more stonewalling will come true. Sooner or later though the reality of the crumbling wall with hit them...
It's not so much "support" as just wondering what your point is precisely.

No, I'm not making this up.😛 Name some MSM entities that admit their bias. That's right -they don't. They hide behind "journalism". Blogs don't hide behind that mask.

No, my point was that the MSM needs to get back to reporting the news - not playing games with it or fitting "news" into their "stories". The "new media" is here to stay so the MSM better wise up to the fact that they are being watched(by all sides) and the truth will be outed in short order.
Reposted since you didn't seem to read it the first time.

CsG
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Newspaper is a dead medium with the Internet, IMO. So selling out to appease the rightwing critics is not going to solve the problem, but may just accelerate it.

Notice how you on the left here continue to think this is a left vs right issue - it's not. Try focusing on the issue at hand instead of your left/right whining. There are leftist bloggers out there just like right-wing bloggers.

CsG
Then why did your OP linked article do nothing but bitch non-stop about the liberal bias of the MSM?
 
Look at the RIAA.
Look at the MPAA.
Look at Clearchannel.

Pretty obvious, isn't it?
I just wish they'd die faster.

Not only is there bias, but reporting has been increasingly superficial. That's what really got me not watching the news or reading the paper: you could read the whole article, and wonder where the real content was! Oh yeah, nowhere, because that would have taken time and effort, and eaten into the advertising profits.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Newspaper is a dead medium with the Internet, IMO. So selling out to appease the rightwing critics is not going to solve the problem, but may just accelerate it.

Notice how you on the left here continue to think this is a left vs right issue - it's not. Try focusing on the issue at hand instead of your left/right whining. There are leftist bloggers out there just like right-wing bloggers.

CsG
Then why did your OP linked article do nothing but bitch non-stop about the liberal bias of the MSM?

It was pointing out their (willing?) blindness. The same sort of thing is done by the left vs what they consider "right-wing media" - thus it is not a left vs right issue. It is a MSM vs "new media" issue. The "new media" isn't right or left(it's both and everywhere in between).

CsG
 
Noonan takes notice

"Salivating morons." "Scalp hunters." "Moon howlers." "Trophy hunters." "Sons of Sen. McCarthy." "Rabid." "Blogswarm." "These pseudo-journalist lynch mob people."

This is excellent invective. It must come from bloggers. But wait, it was the mainstream media and their maidservants in the elite journalism reviews, and they were talking about bloggers!

CsG
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Newspaper is a dead medium with the Internet, IMO. So selling out to appease the rightwing critics is not going to solve the problem, but may just accelerate it.

Notice how you on the left here continue to think this is a left vs right issue - it's not. Try focusing on the issue at hand instead of your left/right whining. There are leftist bloggers out there just like right-wing bloggers.

CsG

It's not a left-right issue. It's a internet vs paper issue. But sucking up to rightwingers is not going to make that issue go away.
 
I think it is interesting if true the LA times is trying to sell a newspaper without the news. I think their advertisers would like to know about this. Advertising is based on subscriptions. The LA times trying to get a subscription by not even giving you the paper sounds fishy.

 
What do you expect them to do?

News outlets do two things - they report the news and they editorialize. Unless you're about to start arguing that the AP and Reuters are biased, we have to focus on the commentary. Editorials reflect the views of the journalists working for the news organization. People that go to college intending the become journalists are overwhelmingly not neo-cons.

There are only two ways to solve this "problem". 1) Hire journalists who write opinions not their own, but what their audience wants to hear or 2) Start news organizations that specifically look to hire the minority, people with neo-conservative views (like Fox News). I don't think either is acceptable.

My opinion is that this will solve itself after Bush leaves office - I haven't seen any moves by the Bush administration to continue their neo-con dynasty and all probable Republican contenders look to be much more moderate and accepting of alternate viewpoints.
 
I think the point is report the news. If you want to insert your opinion in the story that is for the OP\Ed page not the front page.

 
Back
Top