"How do you say schadenfreude in French?

That's what reader Torcoclown asks in an email linking to the following Christian Science Monitor story:

Left-wing French daily's 'last chance' rests with capitalists

Liberation, a newspaper created following the French student revolt of 1968, is facing a financial crisis.

Whole tale of woe here.

Torcoclown gives props to sometime Reason antagonist Antiwar.com and sometime Reason contributor Gene Callahan.

Comments

[Paul]

Things are tough all over.

[Evan!]

Like most other bullshit idealogues, it doesn't matter if their bogeyman turns out to be their only chance at salvation, they'll still find a way to spin it around and make it look like the only reason that they were in this position in the first place is capitalism.

[rafuzo]

Serge July, the editor who had created Lib?ration along with philosopher-writer Jean-Paul Sartre, said he resigned in hopes that his departure would help save the paper from more radical changes.

So does that mean he's a conservative when it comes to his paper?

[joe]

See, the problem with France is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur.

[Aresen]

"See, the problem with France is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur."

Now THAT is great use of irony.

[MUTT]

In the US, newspapers exist to sell eyes to advertisers. Mark Twain once pointed out that he knew of no editor who would deliberately run a story that would cost him readers (and ad revenue)- thats when he was Chairman of the American Anti Imperialist League. And what they were saying wouldnt sell papers as readily as the jingo crap put out by Hearst.
In Europe, and moreso in Latin America, newspapers were/are the organs of political parties, and you know where the bias is.
Im thinking this paper simply couldnt sell lucrative ad space, & its constituency is mostly people who dont have much $.
It dosnt mean its more (or less) full of shit than the NYT (or NY Daily News, or the Washington Times- or Reason) it just means those who support its line cant support the finances of the paper.
Nothing to cheer about, in my book. Points of view that cant buy space for expression dosnt mean they aint w/o thier valid points. "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend"-Some murderous hypocrit.

[Charles de Gaulle]

Maginot?

[Aresen]

Mutt

Not sure if I follow your argument. I think the fact that they couldn't get a large enough audience to support their publication is an argument their position lacked sufficient validity to obtain said audience. Sounds like the 'democracy of the marketplace' to me.

From the number of leftist publications I see on the newstands here, there appears to be no shortage of lefties with money to spend. [By 'leftist publiactions', I mean start with "The Nation" & continue marching left. The NYT and Harper's are right-wing rags to the people I'm talking about.]

[MUTT]

I dont think the shutting down of a newspaper is anything to cheer about, is all, Aresen, even if I dont like the politics of it.....its one less platform for people to say- "wait a minute"- and just another dumbing down nail in the ciffin of public discourse.
Because a lot of people dont agree with your position dosnt mean your position lacks validity- or is the public square reduced to a episode of Family Feud, where the person who says what most people believe "wins"?
Given the high cost of putting out a publication, if that publication appeals primarily to people who cant rub two sous together, hence not the sort commercial adveertisers go after- well, then, Dosnt mean thier ideas are wrong, or mostly wrong, or right, for that matter. It just means they dont appeal to people with disposable income.
Or they could have mismaged everything & blown all the $ on cheap cigs, smelly cheese, & berets.
I just take no joy when a political publication goes down.