Comments on: In Keeping With Our Theme…

By: Yiddish Steel

Yiddish Steel — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:49:30 +0000

Without the San Diego Cage Liner, how am I supposed to get my Manufacturer’s Coupons??? And my NYT Crossword??? And my Jumble??? And those Obituaries???

By: Preston Taylor Holmes

Preston Taylor Holmes — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:20:57 +0000

No need, Lemur. I wasn’t taking a shot at you. Sometimes I leave stuff out just because I assume they don’t need to be said. Probably not a good idea most of the time. Assuming too much and what not.

I passed 3 tent cities between my office and Cedar Bluff just now. I think that Ebony reporter was really onto something.

By: Lemur King

Lemur King — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:36:01 +0000

I know that smirk. I loathe that smirk.

Bones blacken, blood boils, and skin crawls.

By: michele

michele — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:16:12 +0000

I thought he sounded like he was drowning and grasping for a life preserver. I couldn’t make sense out of anything he said, except the snarky remark he made about liking to know what he’s talking about before he speaks, which was followed by a smirk and a dismissal of the reporter.

By: Lemur King

Lemur King — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:17:54 +0000

Whups. Sorry to state the obvious. Diarrhea of the mouth at times.

Just heard Diane Rhem on the radio and it was nauseating how all the sycophants were slavering all over how totally bodaciously awesomely amazing their man was last night with one slam-dunk fist-bump after another.

He still used a prompter. So there.

Just had to throw that in.

By: Michele

Michele — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:08:53 +0000

The good journalists will survive. They will probably have a bigger podium because the informed will seek them out, and will be able to connect with them like never before. They will be able to generate their own advertising. It’s a beneficial situation for individuals, just not good for papers.

By: Preston Taylor Holmes

Preston Taylor Holmes — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:04:20 +0000

LK, obviously, there are exceptions to every rule. I like to give our readers credit by not stating the obvious. I think you’re right about there being a need for the longer, in-depth pieces that some journalists do a great job with. I hope you’re right about a return to factual reporting instead of a machine that frames, regurgitates and results in the publishing of the Rahm Emanuel Bullshit Talking Points Daily.

By: Lemur King

Lemur King — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:50:39 +0000

Good post, Preston.

You can’t deny that some professional reporters are worth their wages and that in some cases a reporter by virtue of credentials can gain access where an “ordinary blogger” cannot. No biggie there. So while papers may die, reporters will stick around -if- publishers figure it out in time.

I believe that the future of newspapers will follow two major branches. This is after the print version dies forever. Electronic is the future, which they are the last to figure out, apparently.

One will be that newspapers will evolve into more of a Time/Newsweek format where the articles are longer but still split the difference between where they used to be and where the bigger publication “magazines” are. The reporting cycle will have to be somewhere in the middle of the road as well.

Secondly, and this will require serious effort on their part – they will have to evolve into entities that are more purely factual -AND- accredited or vetted (or perhaps there is a better word) in such a way as to show a greater level of professionalism and veracity than we’ve seen. An example of poor news is Dan

Rather and CBS, but this is hardly unique and this attitude has roots all through news organizations. Hell, poor and unreliable news yet another reason why Bloggers took off with a bang.

Ever watch the Walter K. broadcasts from the Kennedy Cuban Missile Crisis? That was factual. It was a very marked difference. If papers were to report who/what/where/why/when in a direct fashion, I’d be willing to pay good money to subscribe to a site. But when the reporter tries to get artistic or displays the information in a jumbled fashion… well, who has time for that?

By: Preston Taylor Holmes

Preston Taylor Holmes — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:44:48 +0000

All good points and relevant.

And you would think all the environmentalists would want to shut their papers down forthwith to save a tree for Gaia.

By: michele

michele — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:46:27 +0000

Newspapers are dying because 1) they no longer have that “first on the scene” angle anymore. If we want to know about how people are faring after a hurricane in Texas for instance, we can just send out a tweet or check the blogs and practically be in the kitchen sweeping up glass with them. 2) If a person has a complaint or comment, he has to send it to the editor, then the editor decides if it’s worthy to print (or suits his agenda). On the internet its a 24 hour round table discussion where everybody gets to make their point and they don’t have to have any “credentials” to do it. 3)In the past before the internet, a story was printed in the paper and that was it. Maybe next week there would be more about it, but there weren’t really many resources for digging in. The internet is a candy store of links and references and information. We no longer have to be ignorant.

On the internet we don’t have to wait for our news to come late. For it to come from some magical man behind the curtain, and it isn’t predigested.

So why the hell do any trees need to be sacrificed for newspaper journalists these days?