The decline of our civilization...

KennyFlys said:
Try executing a bit of your own "critical thinking" and explain why it's wrong. In other words, back up your own words.
Click to expand...

It's really not that difficult. You're attempting to prove Anthony's claim of media bias with a singular example, which is really a poor way to construct an argument. Not to mention the example you selected essentially revolves around an attorney with an axe to grind trotting out a self-proclaimed "confidential source" to a reporter. Did you actually read to the end of the article and see the Times editor's reply?


Trapper John
 
We can debate the ideological leanings of the various news organizations all day long, but one fact is undeniable -- the consolidation of various media outlets under single, large corporations causes hidden and yet well-orchestrated media-created "news" events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearst_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_corp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_Time_Warner

  • Thus ABC carries a "news" item about all the "buzz" surrounding the latest Disney studios release....
  • News corp newspapers publish articles about contestants on a News corp owned program on a News Corp network. News Corp magazines publish glossy, favorable "stories" about the same contestants and "personalities," thereby creating more "buzz" to be written about in News Corp "newspapers"...
  • Hearst-owned news papers publish book "reviews" about books published by Hearst-owned publishers...
And we wonder why the internet is so attractive as an alternative media source?
 
Most trends start with a single example. We're well beyond that by a cursory review of stories. One has to be intellectually dishonest to claim there is no bias to the left in the media.
 
Like auto makers, again, I say let the market rule. The public is deciding newspapers are old news. Its the buggy whip of communication.

Buh bye............
 
Anthony said:
Like auto makers, again, I say let the market rule. The public is deciding newspapers are old news. Its the buggy whip of communication.

Buh bye............
Click to expand...

True enough; my fear is when all the journalism is on web sites it could be very difficult to distinguish genuine journalism from partisan rants. That and it is always disconcerting to me to see a decline in the printed word.
 
KennyFlys said:
Most trends start with a single example. We're well beyond that by a cursory review of stories. One has to be intellectually dishonest to claim there is no bias to the left in the media.
Click to expand...

Let's take this to SZ if you want to continue. It really doesn't belong here.


Trapper John
 
steingar said:
True enough; my fear is when all the journalism is on web sites it could be very difficult to distinguish genuine journalism from partisan rants. That and it is always disconcerting to me to see a decline in the printed word.
Click to expand...


The printed word is alive and well. Its just not going to come to your front door on a piece of paper. Those same news agencies for better or for worse, are coming to you via your computer.
 
steingar said:
True enough; my fear is when all the journalism is on web sites it could be very difficult to distinguish genuine journalism from partisan rants.
Click to expand...
The public seems to have no trouble doing so...which is why newspapers are declining: the public is seeing them for the partisan mouthpieces they've become, and they're not interested.
 
jmaynard said:
The public seems to have no trouble doing so...which is why newspapers are declining: the public is seeing them for the partisan mouthpieces they've become, and they're not interested.
Click to expand...

I suspect they are suffering from the competition of broadcast journalism and on-line sources. Understandable, but unfortunate in my world view.
 
steingar said:
I suspect they are suffering from the competition of broadcast journalism and on-line sources. Understandable, but unfortunate in my world view.
Click to expand...

You wanted CHANGE. Here it is. :cheerswine:
 
steingar said:
jmaynard said:
The public seems to have no trouble doing so...which is why newspapers are declining: the public is seeing them for the partisan mouthpieces they've become, and they're not interested.
Click to expand...
I suspect they are suffering from the competition of broadcast journalism and on-line sources. Understandable, but unfortunate in my world view.
Click to expand...
Those two are not incompatible. Most folks who get tired of seeing the same old slant in everything they read in their local newspaper and can get coverage that's not all singing the same song elsewhere will leave the newspaper behind.
 
jmaynard said:
The public seems to have no trouble doing so...which is why newspapers are declining: the public is seeing them for the partisan mouthpieces they've become, and they're not interested.
Click to expand...

Call me crazy, but I thought it was more along the lines of "Why pay 50 cents a day (more on sunday) and have to flip through those pages and deal with the trash, when I can see the exact same thing sitting at my desk on the computer for free?"

And it's a heck of a lot more cost effective for newspapers to go to online editions only, the big downside is the loss of revenue, which could be offset from advertising if your viewership is steady.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
How many people need printed papers really? They're inefficient and if enough really needed them, they'd be able to stay in business.
Click to expand...
I know a number of people, mostly older, who read the physical newspaper religiously. Newspapers are also a popular item with some on the airplane. One of our main passengers has made it clear that he wants newspapers for his flights, and he is in his 40s.

dmccormack said:
As a Gold member of every reputable hotel chain, I get a newspaper at my door in the morning.

Ask me the last time I did more than move it out of the way....
Click to expand...
Funny because I often read the newspaper at my door. I'm just about ready to head downstairs for a cup of coffee and the newspaper.

jmaynard said:
Those two are not incompatible. Most folks who get tired of seeing the same old slant in everything they read in their local newspaper and can get coverage that's not all singing the same song elsewhere will leave the newspaper behind.
Click to expand...
The newpaper may have an editorial opinion but there are always rebuttals. I don't find the actual news to be that slanted. One of my favorite sections of the newspaper is the opinions section which is probably why I also sometimes enjoy SZ here, as long as it doesn't get too personal. The newspapers have the advantage of being to edit all that personal stuff out.
 
jmaynard said:
The public seems to have no trouble doing so...which is why newspapers are declining: the public is seeing them for the partisan mouthpieces they've become, and they're not interested.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's so much the partisanship as it is the material being reported. All of the news media has gotten to be so doom-and-gloom that it's just not fun to read. And there is as much conservative media as there is liberal. Ironically, as liberal of a town as Madison is, our surviving newspaper is the conservative one!

I get most of my news online, and I don't subscribe to a newspaper, but when I see a newspaper various articles catch my eye and I tend to read it for a fair length of time, and read things that I wouldn't bother reading online where you probably only see the "top headlines" and not the less-popular stories or pictures that catch your eye when reading a printed paper.
 
Trapper John said:
Too bad there's absolutely no evidence to support that statement.


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Precisely. All too often, people (irrespective of their political affiliation) seem to believe that the word "bias" can mean "factual accounts of things I don't like to hear about".

In any case, politics has, IMNSHO, pretty much zero to do with the predicament newspapers find themselves in. They had the opportunity to be legitimate players in online media very early on, but instead of having the foresight to take a slight hit in subscription fees and pour their efforts into maintaining their edge in content production and classified ads. Instead, they decided to forgo bringing classified ads -- their real cash cow -- online, tried to tighten their grip on news and commentary, and tried to keep their relatively insignificant subscription revenue stream in place.

Those are three totally bad decisions right there, and the most glaring loss is the classified ad revenue -- by some estimates they've lost over half of what may be a $30bn/yr market. Dumb. :dunno:

Anyway, again, that's not politics, that's all business. People who think otherwise just have some kind of partisan ax to grind and frustrations to voice, that's all.
 
Last edited:
ScottPA said:
...
It is sad that the newspapers are folding, but I really can't remember the last time I read one. We get 99% of our news from online now. If we didn't, we would just have to turn on one of the 24hr news networks and be overwhelmed...
Click to expand...

Yeah. Who needs the newspapers when we have blogs that will link to news stories for us and 24 hour news channels and local news that will read those stories to us....Oh. Wait. :arf:
 
And using this forum as "Exhibit A" in support of your apprehension?

steingar said:
True enough; my fear is when all the journalism is on web sites it could be very difficult to distinguish genuine journalism from partisan rants. That and it is always disconcerting to me to see a decline in the printed word.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
And using this forum as "Exhibit A" in support of your apprehension?
Click to expand...

Hah! :D

Seriously, though, I don't think too many people make the mistake of confusing the user-generated content of a discussion forum with legitimate news reporting. Some people may, but if they make a habit of it, it's usually not long before they're embarrassed and discredited.
 
I can get the same local news content from the computer screen or from the plastic sack in my driveway each morning. I would rather walk outside than turn on the computer, and pay a $1 a week for the privilige of doing so.

I was heavily involved in computer stuff long before most on this list were shaving, so being "with it" is not so much an issue as abandoning a somewhat comfortable ritual of 50-some years. The problem for me is that the content in both formats has declined to the point that it's hard to read either one. My perusal time has probably decreased by at least 50% over the past five years, simply because there's nothing there.

Thinking back, I remember when our primary source of national coverage was the Newreels at the Saturday movies, local news was obtained over telephone party lines.
 
wabower said:
I can get the same local news content from the computer screen or from the plastic sack in my driveway each morning. I would rather walk outside than turn on the computer, and pay a $1 a week for the privilige of doing so.

I was heavily involved in computer stuff long before most on this list were shaving, so being "with it" is not so much an issue as abandoning a somewhat comfortable ritual of 50-some years. The problem for me is that the content in both formats has declined to the point that it's hard to read either one. My perusal time has probably decreased by at least 50% over the past five years, simply because there's nothing there.

Thinking back, I remember when our primary source of national coverage was the Newreels at the Saturday movies, local news was obtained over telephone party lines.
Click to expand...

The perceived drop in the quality of the content over the last, say, 5 years or so is probably a legitimate phenomenon, and I think there are two factors at work there. One is the consolidation of the industry... All too often in reading the Tribune, I come across an article written by an LA Times reporter. In itself, that may not sound like a big deal, but when you consider that there's essentially half of the stories being published in those cases, the cumulative effect becomes clear.

Secondly, it seems to me that the newspapers are very, very late to the party and are attempting to adapt their content to online readers. Instead of sticking with the more comprehensive coverage they used to provide, it appears they're consequently making editorial decisions that too heavily favor brevity. Stories (and this seems in my completely subjective view to be particularly evident in national stories) just don't contain the in-depth reporting that they used to.

All in all, again, it's just another example of the companies doing a poor, poor job of adapting to a changed marketplace.
 
By the time the ink hits the paper, the news in it is OBSOLETE. Its time to move on. :D
 
I love reading, and I'm one of those who believe that reading, especially good books, makes for a healthier society, but I'm not too alarmed at the decline of the newspaper. Since the first news pamphlets in the 1600s, the news market has favored those selling scandal, gossip, and lies engineered for political or ideological purposes. Even the greatest, most dignified papers have been battling that for centuries.

Before TV, newspapers were not always a noble, civilizing force. Consider W.R. Hearst, for example. But if you measure America's greatness only by the power it exerts worldwide or how homogenous its culture is, you might think that's a good thing.

I used to get freaked out, before it became obvious what the internet could do to printed media, by the possibility that in my lifetime there would be nothing but tabloids. They're amusing, but there are people who believe anything they read in those rags, and have the will to act on that belief. It depresses me.

It's Orwellian, especially when you look at the two main papers in NYC. Forget the Times... ride the subway some morning, and you will mostly see noses buried in the NY Post or theDaily News. Both are shameless, pee-yellow rags suitable mostly for lining birdcages, but in essence, the Post is the right-wing paper, and the News is the left-wing paper. It's a brilliant marketing concept... folks in both camps can feel they are being paragons of their camp by absorbing all of this drivel, tailor-made for their own political self-image (which was created largely by the media in the first place). And they actually pay for it, every day. Amazing.

It's almost come true... but really, TV has already half-murdered the newspaper.
TV is like a BS filter for news that works in reverse: only the BS really gets through. Shows like 60 Minutes aside, the "cool" experience of watching TV vs the "warm" experience of reading lends itself less to informing people and more to "wowing" them, or arousing them in the most primitive manner, facts and common sense be damned. This is why C-Span, which is an incredible, empowering thing when you think about it, sort of a peephole into our government, is like watching paint dry for most people.
It's "bad TV". In real life, most people would rather go to the fair than the town council meeting, let's face it.

So will TV and the 'net cause the decline of countries like the US ? I don't know. The 'net will almost certainly destroy newspapers, and even TV (as we know it), but the "blogosphere" has as much potential as newspapers and TV once did for providing truly fair and balanced news, despite everything wrong with the concept (similar flaws to newspapers and TV, IMHO). A lie needs no particular medium to be successful... every medium allows "spin", and the bottom line will always be money, I think.

On the one hand, the Internet creates communities across traditional community lines, even international lines... and on the other, it makes it easier for those new groups to become polarized from their own regional communities and other communities in general. A lot of folks already live in a reality composed almost entirely of what they get from websites.


All this worries me, especially the decline of books (I love books! Real books... especially big heavy ones!), but mostly because I am becoming more outdated every day. I admit that for me, it's mostly a matter of sentiment.

But I'm young enough to have never really trusted mass media in all its forms, including print, so I also have some hope for the potential of what will take their place, just as I've always known that the freedom of the press is more important than the medium, or even the bulk of its content.
 
Both products I read in print form, I can read for "free" (or nearly free) on the Internet. But, I'm still using my computer. I spend 75%+ of my waking time using my computer. I like part of that 25% to be with the paper in my hands, reading and focused on what I'm learning.

Just my $0.02.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
astanley said:
Both products I read in print form, I can read for "free" (or nearly free) on the Internet. But, I'm still using my computer. I spend 75%+ of my waking time using my computer. I like part of that 25% to be with the paper in my hands, reading and focused on what I'm learning.

Just my $0.02.

Cheers,

-Andrew
Click to expand...

When it's time to focus on reading, "Newspaper" does not fit the focused-reading requirement.

The last few days 5 books have occupied my reading time (depends on where I am and the mood I am in):
  • Aquinas in the Courtroom: Lawyers, Judges, and Judicial Conduct, Nemeth
  • At the Edge of Empire: The Backcountry in British North America
  • Instrument Flying Refresher, Collins
  • Bible (ESV)
  • Martin Luther, Marty
There is simple not enough time in a day to wade through the latest tripe about Anna Nicole Smith, Sham-wow guy, and GM's woes.
 
dmccormack said:
When it's time to focus on reading, "Newspaper" does not fit the focused-reading requirement.

The last few days 5 books have occupied my reading time (depends on where I am and the mood I am in):
  • Aquinas in the Courtroom: Lawyers, Judges, and Judicial Conduct, Nemeth
  • At the Edge of Empire: The Backcountry in British North America
  • Instrument Flying Refresher, Collins
  • Bible (ESV)
  • Martin Luther, Marty
There is simple not enough time in a day to wade through the latest tripe about Anna Nicole Smith, Sham-wow guy, and GM's woes.
Click to expand...

My definition of newspaper is different from most. I read FT daily, the Economist weekly, and the Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, and Harvard Business Review monthly. These, to me, are "news" and "analysis" sources; plus the internet, and social reading I do (history, food, lit), all fill in the gaps. And, until last Friday night, I had no clue what Sham-wow was, never mind who this guy is. (I don't have TV, broadcast or cable, at home. Just DVD's and VHS)

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
rottydaddy said:
the Post is the right-wing paper, and the News is the left-wing paper. It's a brilliant marketing concept... folks in both camps can feel they are being paragons of their camp by absorbing all of this drivel, tailor-made for their own political self-image (which was created largely by the media in the first place).
Click to expand...
I think this is definitely true. People enjoy reading things that reinforce the opinions they had in the first place. I thought this was an interesting op-ed piece about that subject which, in the interest of full disclosure, I found surfing the NYT on-line.

The Daily Me

When we go online, each of us is our own editor, our own gatekeeper. We select the kind of news and opinions that we care most about.

Nicholas Negroponte of M.I.T. has called this emerging news product The Daily Me. And if that’s the trend, God save us from ourselves.

That’s because there’s pretty good evidence that we generally don’t truly want good information — but rather information that confirms our prejudices. We may believe intellectually in the clash of opinions, but in practice we like to embed ourselves in the reassuring womb of an echo chamber.
Click to expand...
 
astanley said:
My definition of newspaper is different from most. I read FT daily, the Economist weekly, and the Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, and Harvard Business Review monthly. These, to me, are "news" and "analysis" sources; plus the internet, and social reading I do (history, food, lit), all fill in the gaps. And, until last Friday night, I had no clue what Sham-wow was, never mind who this guy is. (I don't have TV, broadcast or cable, at home. Just DVD's and VHS)

Cheers,

-Andrew
Click to expand...

The Atlantic is on my peruse list (I'm a subscriber).

It's not a "newspaper," by any account, however.
 
I don't envy them in their attempts to salvage something out of the deal. It looks to me like a losing battle. My impression is that when they started to lose traditional (hard-copy) readership they reacted by cost-cutting meaures, most of which included firing the high-priced writers that their readership most enjoyed. Then they "redesigned" the sections, another definition for lumping stuff together to reduce page count and content.

When the decline continued, they decided the internet could no longer be ignored, so their revised strategy was to incorporate more of that medium (expanded coverage, related stories) into their mix. Meanwhile every news provider (local and national TV stations, etc.) were doing the same thing, so the impact of the changes made by "the paper" were a ho-hum deal.

I'm a life-long classified ad reader. I don't always read the same ones but look through various sections from time to time. The volume in almost every category appears to be down by ~75%. But those ads were necessary, albeit expensive on a per-line basis, when the paper was the only game in town, and if you wanted to achieve some exposure for whatever it was you wanted to sell. Ain't so no mo.


ReverendSlappy said:
The perceived drop in the quality of the content over the last, say, 5 years or so is probably a legitimate phenomenon, and I think there are two factors at work there. One is the consolidation of the industry... All too often in reading the Tribune, I come across an article written by an LA Times reporter. In itself, that may not sound like a big deal, but when you consider that there's essentially half of the stories being published in those cases, the cumulative effect becomes clear.

Secondly, it seems to me that the newspapers are very, very late to the party and are attempting to adapt their content to online readers. Instead of sticking with the more comprehensive coverage they used to provide, it appears they're consequently making editorial decisions that too heavily favor brevity. Stories (and this seems in my completely subjective view to be particularly evident in national stories) just don't contain the in-depth reporting that they used to.

All in all, again, it's just another example of the companies doing a poor, poor job of adapting to a changed marketplace.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I don't envy them in their attempts to salvage something out of the deal. It looks to me like a losing battle. My impression is that when they started to lose traditional (hard-copy) readership they reacted by cost-cutting meaures, most of which included firing the high-priced writers that their readership most enjoyed. Then they "redesigned" the sections, another definition for lumping stuff together to reduce page count and content.

When the decline continued, they decided the internet could no longer be ignored, so their revised strategy was to incorporate more of that medium (expanded coverage, related stories) into their mix. Meanwhile every news provider (local and national TV stations, etc.) were doing the same thing, so the impact of the changes made by "the paper" were a ho-hum deal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that pretty much jives with my view of it as well.

wabower said:
I'm a life-long classified ad reader. I don't always read the same ones but look through various sections from time to time. The volume in almost every category appears to be down by ~75%. But those ads were necessary, albeit expensive on a per-line basis, when the paper was the only game in town, and if you wanted to achieve some exposure for whatever it was you wanted to sell. Ain't so no mo.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And what I've never been able to figure out is why they didn't immediately jump on expanding that same service (and the fat margins associated with it) into their online offerings... It seems to me they had a huge competitive advantage there in that when people used think, "Hey, I want to sell/buy something" they automatically thought of the classifieds. And it wouldn't have taken long at all for a strategy of "For an extra $xx, we'll also include your ad in our online classifieds..." to really gain momentum. That marketplace (think Craigslist, all the job sites, etc.) today would probably look quite a bit different if they had done that.

Dunno. Anyway, I find it pretty difficult to work up much sympathy for them. :dunno:
 
dmccormack said:
We can debate the ideological leanings of the various news organizations all day long, but one fact is undeniable -- the consolidation of various media outlets under single, large corporations causes hidden and yet well-orchestrated media-created "news" events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearst_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_corp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_Time_Warner

  • Thus ABC carries a "news" item about all the "buzz" surrounding the latest Disney studios release....
  • News corp newspapers publish articles about contestants on a News corp owned program on a News Corp network. News Corp magazines publish glossy, favorable "stories" about the same contestants and "personalities," thereby creating more "buzz" to be written about in News Corp "newspapers"...
  • Hearst-owned news papers publish book "reviews" about books published by Hearst-owned publishers...
And we wonder why the internet is so attractive as an alternative media source?
Click to expand...

Exactly correct. Those in the industry call it "Synergy". (The running joke at Clear Channel when they bought the entertainment division that's now Live Nation was: "What does this acquisition mean for radio? Free concert tickets and promotion opportunities...")

Anthony said:
The printed word is alive and well. Its just not going to come to your front door on a piece of paper. Those same news agencies for better or for worse, are coming to you via your computer.
Click to expand...


Yes and no. Because the internet has much lower barriers to entry, it is far harder to monetize the content. And without monetizing the content, there is not enough money to pay folks to gather newsworthy content. And that, in turn, means that more of the material is opinion as opposed to quality, researched, and edited content.... and therefore is less trustworthy.

The real value to newspapers and local media outlets (radio/tv) is local news and content. YOU (not you specifically, that's the royal YOU) may not care about the local sports teams, crime, or civic events, but a LOT of folks do. And that local content is really only generated by one or two sources, if at all.

One of the key issues is that local media never really adjusted to having competition eat into their very healthy profit margin.
 
To turn McLuhan on his head, the medium is not the message, the message is the message. H.L. Mencken, Edward R. Murrow, they don't make them like that anymore, and haven't for quite some time. Everyone wants to be a pundit, nobody wants to do the shoe leather work of the ink-stained wretch.
I knew journalism was in trouble when the City of Baltimore closed Mencken's house to the public a few years ago. The place should be a shrine.
 
Bill,

That is true, but those same newspapers all have web sites where you can get the same news either for free or a subscription. If you want to read an article like a paper, you can always print it out. I just think its better, faster, less expensive and more environmentally friendly to get it electronically. YMMV.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
To turn McLuhan on his head, the medium is not the message, the message is the message. H.L. Mencken, Edward R. Murrow, they don't make them like that anymore, and haven't for quite some time. Everyone wants to be a pundit, nobody wants to do the shoe leather work of the ink-stained wretch.
I knew journalism was in trouble when the City of Baltimore closed Mencken's house to the public a few years ago. The place should be a shrine.
Click to expand...

Mencken was good with words, but that doesn't absolve him of being a self-important, arrogant ass.
 
Anthony said:
That is true, but those same newspapers all have web sites where you can get the same news either for free or a subscription. If you want to read an article like a paper, you can always print it out. I just think its better, faster, less expensive and more environmentally friendly to get it electronically. YMMV.
Click to expand...
That may be true for most of us here since we are obviously not shy about using computers, but that is not necessarily true of the population of people I know. In real life, I don't know very many people who read the newspaper on the computer. I'm often teased because I do.
 
When my parents retired to the boondocks (the population of their burg is ~ 230), one of my father's biggest complaints was that he had to drive 30 miles every morning to get the newspaper. No one delivers daily papers along his road.

Both of my parents having much better computer literacy than most people their age, I set them up with satellite Internet and bought them a decent computer with a big LCD monitor, figuring they could read the news on the Internet. They thanked me profusely... but...

The next time I visited, my father was still getting up early every morning and driving 30 miles to get the papers. When I asked him why, he said it was because he enjoyed reading the news at the kitchen table while eating breakfast, and the computer was all the way up on the second floor.

So I called the satellite company and got them to upgrade the transceiver to an Ethernet model (the old one had been USB ). Then I installed a wireless router and gave him a laptop with an 18.4" monitor, so he could read the online versions of the newspapers at the kitchen table while eating breakfast. Again, he thanked me... but...

The next time I went up there, he was still driving 30 miles every morning to buy the newspapers. When I asked him why, he said it "just wasn't the same" as turning the pages of a printed newspaper. The laptop now sits unused except by my young nieces and nephew when they go up to visit.

Myself, I started reading printed newspapers when I was in grammar school back in the 60's, and continued my entire life until they became available online, at which time I stopped buying printed papers except when I was traveling. And then EVDO came along, and I stopped buying printed newspapers except when I was traveling to areas where my EVDO didn't work. Those areas are now few and far between, so I rarely buy a printed newspaper any more. The last one I bought is dated September 12, 2001. (I still have it.)

Nonetheless, the demise of the printed news industry does sadden me. Paper and ink is an inefficient, wasteful, slow medium for the circulation of news; the physical production and circulation of the papers consumes energy and resources; the ink gets all over your hands when you read it; and the papers have to be bundled for recycling every week. In almost every way, using almost any objective criteria, the Web makes more sense as a medium for news distribution.

But my father is right: There is indeed some elusive thing about reading from a printed page that the Web can't duplicate.

I think I'm going to walk to the deli across the street and buy a paper.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
...But my father is right: There is indeed some elusive thing about reading from a printed page that the Web can't duplicate.

I think I'm going to walk to the deli across the street and buy a paper.
Click to expand...

Nah. You just need to buy Dad an iPhone and a Kindle to add to his collection of stuff he won't use. :wink2:

I kept buying Mom stuff I thought would make life easier: among other things a TiVo, universal TV remote control, Quicken, lately a new radio with pillow speaker.

I never learned each time (after time after time) that she will not be using them after I leave. :dunno:

We have a hard time imagining our parents not finding even basic tech all natural and wonderful.
 
RJM62 said:
Nonetheless, the demise of the printed news industry does sadden me. Paper and ink is an inefficient, wasteful, slow medium for the circulation of news; the physical production and circulation of the papers consumes energy and resources; the ink gets all over your hands when you read it; and the papers have to be bundled for recycling every week. In almost every way, using almost any objective criteria, the Web makes more sense as a medium for news distribution.

But my father is right: There is indeed some elusive thing about reading from a printed page that the Web can't duplicate.

I think I'm going to walk to the deli across the street and buy a paper.

-Rich
Click to expand...

I think I could get along well with your dad. :smile:
 
RJM62 said:
Nonetheless, the demise of the printed news industry does sadden me. Paper and ink is an inefficient, wasteful, slow medium for the circulation of news; the physical production and circulation of the papers consumes energy and resources; the ink gets all over your hands when you read it; and the papers have to be bundled for recycling every week. In almost every way, using almost any objective criteria, the Web makes more sense as a medium for news distribution.

But my father is right: There is indeed some elusive thing about reading from a printed page that the Web can't duplicate.

I think I'm going to walk to the deli across the street and buy a paper.

-Rich
Click to expand...

Talk about being saddened. I've worked for a major (over 100,000 daily circulation) daily newspaper for 37 years now. When I first started here, we were setting type with linotype machines! I have read the paper ever day of my adult life. It's just not the same reading online news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top