Same story, different angle. This one's by an editor at the Arizona Republic. His argument, refreshingly enough: mainstream media should be thankful for bloggers.

(Reply) (Thread)

That's a very good article. Thanks for the link! I really like the John Donne allusions too ;)

(Reply) (Thread)

What's wrong with that is that it leaves out the ultimate point. News organizations are ultimately in place to make money. Money is made mostly through advertisers. There is only a small amount made through subscriptions. Yet they depend on higher subscription {read subscription as for magazines, newspapers, online media, and even tv viewers} so they can charge more for the advertisements.

This got rather long winded so I posted the rest of my response in my journal and left the main point here. I'm not saying that the article itself is untrue. Only that it omits a very important point. One which most news media's won't admit to openly even though they know it to be true.

His ~angel~

(Reply) (Thread)

I used to work for financial newswire services and they were extrememly serious about their obligation to deliver accurate and thorough information. That's why the customers paid a premium for the service, on the supposition that getting news before their competition lets them make better decisions. (suppressed giggles on the "acting on the information" part).

Yes, there IS a market for accurate reporting. It's not for you or me, though.

Sadly, both places I worked no longer exist, all mega-merged into a near-monolopy of news reporting. But even after spinning off their newswire service, Knight-Ridder then "rediscovers" the internet (probably never hiring back anyone from the previous venture: why learn from experience?). Clueless :"

(Reply) (Thread)

If I've said it once I;ve said it 1000 times, media bias has a lot more to do with media being lazy than with media being liberal.

(Reply) (Thread)