Not Waiting For The Asteroid

Considering all the simpletons have abandoned credible, authoritative news sources to belong to the cult of the amateurs (this blog included), all that are left to read newspapers are smart people.

They may be making a loss on every product, Kate,
but remember, they'll make up for it in volume.

That reminds me I have to go buy toilet paper.

Just like Spinal Tap, the audience isn't small it's selective.

Really. Would anyone actually pay money for the dubious pleasure (actually painful exercise) of reading the liberal drivel they write? Even the dentist office offers a better experience.

Speaking of axing deadwood, here's a key section from Obama's speech:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account -- to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day -- because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Let's be very generous and give him a year. By January 2010, how many major, wasteful programs do you think will be cut? And precisely what will happen to those in the public sector who have poorly managed the public's dollars?

Its time up for them & they know it. They just codified themselves as snobs.

liberals have difficulty distinguishing fact from opinion.

luckily they have TIME and Newsweak!

Over the last 15 years, I've read Time, Newsweek, et al only during waits for medical professionals. Mercifully, my doctors are great at meeting appointment times.

The thing is that they're not even aimed at SMART snobs. Only idiots and the truly uninformed read Time or Newsweek for actual information. It's like watching TV news to find out what's happening in the world.

People that are actually interested about the world use much better information sources - print or online - to see what's going on. WSJ, FT, Economist, Foreign Policy, Bloomberg... all of them have limitations, but they provide actual content. The Economist tries hard to be interesting and authoritative, but even it can't beat the main problem that a weekly just isn't fast enough. It doesn't feel like news, isn't insightful enough, and is being outcompeted by news and analysis from the web.

The viewpoint issues with WSJ (really lefty news to balance the editorial), FT, Bloomberg are balanced by their immediacy, tenacity, and the actual expertise their reporters develop. Time doesn't have any of that, and their authors think they know everything as it is. Thank god they're going out of business.

What nice men those publishers are.
And what a disrespectful little snot that Johnny is!

Been bent over forwards all day for some MSM buddy all day there Johnny Appleseed, or why are you so testy, being that smart why spend your time here. The MSM lies constantly John boy, examples daily, try global warming first off then move to Y2K.... you'll catch on.

Speaking of the Media, I just retrieved my National Post from the front porch this Wednesday AM.
After unwrapping it, I found that it was TUESDAY'S
paper delivered again! The NP must be in bad shape when they have to recycle the news from one day to the next. Of course it is full of Obama crap so maybe they decided we hadn't gotten enough of the love yet.

They even admit that elite is a code word for liberal.

When you are in a hole, of course the solution is to keep digging. Imagine if they were seeking a broader audience? Naah! They even admit that the no longer seek all of the facts. What they are looking for is an audience stupid enough to buy their product, and the surest way to butter up this audience is to call them "elite", after all, there is no language police out there making sure that words are used correctly, so why not? The next two years will tell us if knee jerk liberalism is the key to success running this country.

robert obama is going to throw another trillion doen the chute and creat 600,000 new government jobs. ok, where do they go from there?

And how is that 'only smart people are reading newspapers today' thing working out for the newspapers? Financially sound, all of them? Not bleeding red ink? Not taking out loans against their buildings, laying off staff or going bankrupt?

Atric...I canceled the Post along time ago when Don Martin became anti Harper because the cons wouldn't pick up the tab for his beer guzzling entitlements.That and the fact that Shela Copps opinions were plentiful.

Their "new" business model - make the news, not report it. Cool.

h.ryan

I too have just cancelled my subscription effective the end of the month. reasons are a bit different but I'm getting tired of Martin & Co. and that insufferable John Moore who on occasion is allowed to write for them.

...editors are turning out weeklies that are smaller, more serious, more opinionated and, though they are loath to admit it, more liberal[...]It is nothing less than a survival strategy.

More serious than ChimpyHaliburtonMcBushitler?
They can't be serious.

More opinionated than saying that 9/11 was an inside job?

Are they really loath to admit they are going to be more liberal?
Can they even be more liberal?

They ought to be informed that this is a failing survival strategy because Liberals don't read.

If Liberals read more, they wouldn't be Liberals.

"They are pursuing a more elite audience, in print and on the Web, abandoning the old Henry Luce notion of catering to the masses."

TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH: These self-admiring leftist publications are going to concentrate on their only sure audience, self-admiring leftists, knowing that others aren't buying their values and world-view anymore.

(Which reminds me of an old joke:
Q. How do you keep a leftist unnformed?
A. Hide his NY Times, Newsweek and Time copies. Q. How do you keep him MISinformed?
A. Find them for him.)

I must confess that I used to get the three dailies delivered at one time but gave up on the red Star. Never liked that paper anyway. After being a Mope & Wail subscriber for some 35 years, I could no longer stomach its leftist crap. I was an early subscriber to the Post but it too grates. I have warned them if they do not drop the leftist columnists, I will drop my subscription. No other paper would permit an opposing view to be printed, so why is the Post trying to be so "objective" by publishing stuff that can be found everywhere else in so much abundance? Radio, TV & the mags - all the same leftist drivel. Why can't I get a paper that that views things from the right?

Why can't I get a paper that that views things from the right?
~Rosco

Because "J" School faculties were consciously and successfully targeted for takeover by the ComIntern and the ComInform many moons ago and they only graduate Leftists.

In addition the most frequent answer to the question, "Why are you studying journalism?" is "Because I want to change the world."
Google it.

Posted by: Oz at January 21, 2009 1:52 PM

If Liberals read more, they wouldn't be Liberals.

Exactly!