Print

Who Will Announce the Death of the Last Newspaper?

|

You won't read about it in Editor & Publisher, but Editor & Publisher is folding. Nielsen Business Media president Greg Farrar has announced that the 108-year-old newspaper industry trade publication, along with that friend of all Amazonians, Kirkus Reviews:

As a result of these decisions, many of our friends and colleagues within these businesses will be leaving the company or will begin to transition to the new ownership immediately. These venerable brands have long been an important part of our Business Media family…

Oh we used to wear out the shoe leather running down the story and checking out whether our mothers really loved us. Kids today just don't get it.

I have never been a big E&P reader, and I am indifferent to the kind doomsaying and puffed-up controversies that occur when media cover media. But it was useful to have a publication tracking the increasingly rapid downfall of the newspaper medium, and I wish the 18 employees and extensive freelance networks of the two publications well.

So who will chronicle the death of the Chronicle, announce the end of Times, and herald the fall of the Herald? Look for negative prognoses, gleeful obits and dancing on the grave from Andrew Breitbart's upcoming Big Journalism blog, which will "fight the mainstream media – New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN — who have repeatedly, and under the guise of objectivity and political neutrality, promoted a blatantly left-of-center, pro-Democratic party agenda."

NEXT: Must Everything That Bothers Peter DeFazio Be Banned?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. ‘Who Will Announce the Death of the Last Newspaper?’

    At least Cavanaugh didn’t call for strangling the last editor with the entrails of the last journalism professor.

  2. Breitbart: “If these traditional media outlets can’t be shamed into telling the truth, diverted for doing the wrong story, for simply running defense for one party, and mocked away from creating journalistic rules that only hold those on the right accountable, then it puts us in a position to do more than we’ve done in the past with talk radio and web aggregation.”

    Agreed, Andrew – but will you also be putting these outlets to shame for their cover up of the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, or for not covering the real (horrifying) consequences of the Iraq and Afghan war?

    Because the problem with Big Journalism is not only that they are Statists, but that they are entirely subservient to the State. They may not like the guy in power, but they would not DARE criticize the State.

    Will YOU????

    1. “Agreed, Andrew – but will you also be putting these outlets to shame for their cover up of the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, or for not covering the real (horrifying) consequences of the Iraq and Afghan war?”

      What media outlets do you read? I would say Israeli crimes against the Palistinians such as they are get a hell of a lot of converage. And the media, at least until Obama got in, did everything but bring the actual bodies on the set when covering the Iraq and Afghanistan war.

      1. Would you rather live in Gaza or in the abandoned offices of Editor & Publisher?

        1. One of my best friends is a free lancer living in GAza. No kidding. She actually says it is not that bad. The place is beautiful and the people are really nice. the on and off power makes it hard. But, she really doens’t mind it.

          1. I bet she used to live in Brooklyn – of course Gaza wouldn’t seem so bad.

            I’m kidding – I really love my brothers and sisters in the Socialist Peoples Republic of New York. Got a problem with that?

            1. “I really love my brothers and sisters in the Socialist Peoples Republic of New York.”

              May they all become flesh eating zombies.

      2. John,

        I had to get my information from out-the-States outlets. The MSM only played a token effort to really report on the war, but to learn about the true consequences of the Israeli attack on the Gaza strip and of the myriads of dead or wounded in Iraq, I had to go to the “outside”, including some Eastern European sites, Russian sites, and anti-war sites.

        Showing pictures of body bags is not the same as showing the countless dead the war in Iraq left, nor the destruction of property.

        1. What are you talking about?

          Everyone knows that our good boys were subject to constant spontaneous shows of popular support among the Iraqi civilians. US troops were planting flowerbeds and rescuing kittens while kids played ball in the street. There were lots of those knee-slapping “oh you silly towelhead” moments, and mirthful laughter to be had by all.

          1. Re: briareus,

            He he he!

            I also loved the “Mission Accomplished” photo. A true Orwellian moment courtesy of the MSM.

          2. Hey fuck you. I was actually in Iraq when all of that happened. And people were very happy to get rid of Saddam. The majority of people there were very happy the US was there. The few people on the top who lived high at everyone else’s expense were not, but the majority were. The Shia in the South and the Kurds were sure as hell glad to see him go.

            It only takes a few assholes to build a bomb and blow it up in a market. Even at the height of the insurgency there were maybe 20,000 insurgents and many of those were foreign. Iraq has a population of about 28 million. If even a large minority of that 28 million had decided they wanted us gone, we would have been in a lot of trouble, weapons or no.

            1. “It only takes a few assholes to build a bomb and blow it up in a market. Even at the height of the insurgency there were maybe 20,000 insurgents and many of those were foreign.”

              20,000 insurgents more than before Saddam was deposed. Fancy that.

              1. That is right. There was only about 500,000 in the Iraqi Army who spent their time running a murderous totalitarian regime. This may come as a shock to you, but Fehrenheit 9-11 wasn’t really true. Saddam was actually not a nice guy.

                1. Fahrenheit 9-11? Sorry never saw it. I prefer to make up my own mind than be told what to think. But nice try, Mr. Jingo. You sure can bait like a master baiter.

                  1. “I prefer to make up my own mind”

                    So what influenced your opinion? For me, it was friends who were Iraqi nationals. And you…?

            2. so we should have killed sadam and then left? righ? becuase the country was filled with good folks that would have done good after we left? why did we then need to kill several hundred thousand of these good people? did you say “oops my bad”?

              1. Because once you killed Saddam the whole government fell like a house of cards and civil society with it. And also a few thousand people from Saudi Arabia showed up and started blowing shit up along with people from Iran to do the same. And of course there were a lot of scores to be settled after 30 years of Saddam.

                Yes, it was a mess. But it was going to be a mess no matter what. Suppose we hadn’t invaded what happened then? Eventually Saddam would have been killed or died and the place would have devolved into anarchy and we would have probably ended up there or it would really have turned into Somalia. There were not any good options.

                1. “There were not any good options.”

                  A good option would have been not to spend the 1970s and 80s meddling about in the place, arming it to the teeth, cross training torture practitioners, and then invading and setting up bases for long term force projection. Go Go Imperial Amerikana! Go USA!! W00t!

                2. Eventually Saddam would have been killed or died and the place would have devolved into anarchy and we would have probably ended up there or it would really have turned into Somalia.

                  I think it’s more likely that Saddam would have been succeeded by one of this depraved offspring. From all indications, they were training for the job at least as much as that repugnant little twerp in north korea.

                  -jcr

        2. Oh bullshit. First, why do assume the anti-war sites are correct? Don’t they have a bias to exagerate the harms? Unless you have been there yourself and done your own reporting, I don’t see how you can say the Eastern European and anti-war sites are any more accurate than the US sites other than they confirm you belief that the US is the focus of evil in the modern world.

          Moreover, what about the harm done to Israel? That is never reported. And suicide bombers getting on busses and killing 10s of innocent people is routinely portrayed as a legitimate form of warfare by the US media. Worse still the US media consistently pushes the myth that the US and Israel are somehow responsible for the heinous behavior of their enemies.

          You want to show how horrible war is? Fine lets show it. But lets show the barbaric the Palistinians do to their own people. And lets talk about the things Al Quada did in Iraq to the civilian population when they were able to control teritory. And lets show the Taliban stoning women to death. You want to talk shit. Lets talk shit. And when we do, you will find out that there are a lot of people in the world who are a hell of a lot worse than the hated Americans and Jews.

            1. So fucking what? Bad shit happens in war. You want to see bad photos sometime, go find some of the area bombing we did in Europe or Japan. Or Korea and Vietnam for that matter.

              1. I don’t see how you are enabling your point. Especially since you don’t have one.

                1. No. You just aren’t smart understand the point. Thus, you are unable to make one in response beyond snark.

                  1. Snark is all that is required to counter hokum.

                    1. No, Snark is all that you can come up with when you can’t make a rational argument.

                    2. Snark is all that is required to counter hokum.

                      Well, practice makes perfect. You’ll get it right eventually.

          1. “And lets talk about the things Al Quada did in Iraq to the civilian population when they were able to control teritory.”

            Oh, you mean like after the US invaded and displaced Saddam? Haha, good point John thanks for making it.

            1. “And suicide bombers getting on busses and killing 10s of innocent people is routinely portrayed as a legitimate form of warfare by the US media.”

              citation needed.

            2. Oh as opposed to the wonderful place that it was under Saddam? You know the place where they killed about 10,000 people a month and people were starving to death thanks to the UN sanctions? That place. Life was so much better under Saddam, gas attacks on his own people, children’s prisons, purges and mass executions and all.

              Good point. Thanks for making it.

              1. “Oh as opposed to the wonderful place that it was under Saddam? You know the place where they killed about 10,000 people a month and people were starving to death thanks to the UN sanctions? That place. Life was so much better under Saddam, gas attacks on his own people, children’s prisons, purges and mass executions and all.”

                Almost all of which can be traced to a meddling US or UK presence from decades past. Thanks for ignoring that point.

                And with your metric, we should be invading every fucking country on the planet that harms anyone. Congratulations, you’re an imperial statist.

                1. If it was all the US’s fault, didn’t we have some moral authority to do something about it? I mean if we were responsible for Saddam being in power, I think we kind of owed it to the people of Iraq to do something about it.

                  That is of course is complete crap and you are an historic illiterate. But, even taken your points at their face value, the war sounds even more justified.

                  1. You really don’t have a point do you? I do give you a little shiny red star for trying. But the unfortunate truth is that my saying “Almost all of which can be traced to a meddling US or UK presence from decades past” is NOT the same thing as saying it was the fault of the US. And no, meddling in there for decades, arming the place, and doing torture cross training between our mutual intelligence services does NOT give us any moral imperative to go in there and clean it up. It gives us only the imperative to get out.

                    I can hear you sweating as you seek to justify whatever role you played over there. Try all you want. The US force was there as an imperialist force, and no amount of your hand waving changes that.

                    Tell yourself whatever you need to sleep, but don’t bother telling it to me.

                    1. i don’t have to justify shit to you. If anything you have to justify yourself for being a lazy ungrateful whinny child who got to live in the richest country on earth thanks to the sacrifices of other people. If convincing yourself that the US and the people who defend it are really the evil ones is how you deal with that guilt, whatever gets you through the night.

              2. I must be on the wrong page. I thought Libertarians “opposed military, political, and economic interventionism in the affairs of other nations”.

                1. “I must be on the wrong page. I thought Libertarians “opposed military, political, and economic interventionism in the affairs of other nations”. “

                  TP, what you are seeing is the obviation that John is no libertarian.

              3. uhh who supported the UN sanctions? oh ya the same guys who supported killing a few hundred thousand Iraqi terrists.

                1. I beleive that was Bill Clinton who did that. And the UN Sanctions and the no fly zone saved about a million kurds from death. Do you think we should have welcomed Saddam back into the international community and said “Sure Saddam you go right ahead and gas all of the Kurds you want”?

                2. Of course standing by and doing nothing and watching Saddam kill millions of his own people and launch wars on his neighbors is the thing to do. That is peace. Anyone who does anything to stop anyone no matter how vile is just a war monger. Really, dying is the best thing anyone can do for peace.

                  1. The sanctions saved Kurds at the expense of Iraqi children, tens of thousands of whom grew up hungry and poor and being constantly reminded that it was all thanks to the US government. And then we act surprised when they hate us. Go figure.

                    And now that you’ve given us your rendition of the “war is peace” orwellism–which coincides perfectly with your reasoning that Saddam’s actions are reasoning enough for invasion–I’m pretty sure that you are supportive of any sort of imperialist intervention around the globe, SO LONG AS IT IS CLOTHED IN LANGUAGE THAT APPEALS TO YOU.

                    1. Why are peaceniks usually so hostile?

          2. John,

            I never assume the anti-war sites are right. But I do find useful information.

            I do not believe the US is the focus of Evil. I believe as Ron Paul believes that it is the POLICY that places Americans in harm’s way.

            What has been happening in Israel is always the result of a policy being followed by her government, ALWAYS. The recent rocket attacks are nothing more than a desperate reaction from the Palestinian Hamas government to “do something” about the Israeli BLOCKADE imposed on the Gaza strip Palestinians. Please, don’t tell me those puny rockets were particularly destructive, and don’t tell me the Israeli attacks were devastating in a piece of land with few hospitals and doctors.

            I am sure some or many Iraquis were happy to see their “leader” go. However, don’t you at least think the country was invaded under false pretenses? That the US acted as an aggressor against a sovereign country that no longer had any resources to fight a war with the most potent nation on Earth? It felt like we were witnessing a rerun of the Third Punic war.

            The way the MSM has behaved regarding these wars tells me more about their view of the All Mighty State than about their seal to find the Truth.

            Hey, maybe the war was not so bad – HOW CAN I TELL, if the MSM is not telling anybody the truth? I can only rely on a few outlets that cover the worst of the worst, from which I can infer a few things.

            Besides this, WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE, and WAR IS A RACKET. I AM anti-war because I AM a Libertarian. I will never accept such a thing as a “just war” because there cannot be such a thing.

            1. I mean “don’t tell me the Israeli attacks were NOT devastating…”

            2. Old Mexican, you should know by now that when it comes to histrionic defense of imperialism, if you don’t support the state like a good little jingo, you must have a “belief that the US is the focus of evil in the modern world”.

            3. “Please, don’t tell me those puny rockets were particularly destructive, and don’t tell me the Israeli attacks were devastating in a piece of land with few hospitals and doctors.”

              Well they are pretty damned bad if you are on the wrong end of them. In the grand scheme of things 9-11 wasn’t that big of a deal. I mean what is 3000 people out of 300 million? But that is not the point. Those rockets were indescriminately launched at civilians and Irsael had every right to respond.

              As far as them being in response to the blockade, why did the Israel do that? Because the Palistinians were launching suicide bombers that were killing 100s of people. What was Israel supposed to do? The Palistinians refuse to recognize the existence of Israel and refuse to stop launching suicide bombers agaisnt Israeli civilians. They have been offered peace and land numerous times and every time have refused because their goal is not peace but the destruction of Israel. Given that fact, I don’t see how you can blame Israel for defending itself. To do otherwise is to tell the Israelis their job is to die for the Palistinians or to cease to exist as a state.

              “That the US acted as an aggressor against a sovereign country that no longer had any resources to fight a war with the most potent nation on Earth?”

              You act as if the US just picked Iraq out of a hat and invaded for fun. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. It then agreed to a ceasefire with the UN. It then proceeded to ignore the terms of that ceasefire for years. It further refused to live by the resolutions of the UN Security Council or show any indication that it wouldn’t be agressive in the future towards its neighbors once it had the oportunity.

              Now, you may not think that justified war. And that is a fair argument. But, whatever it was it wasn’t the Third Punic Wars and it wasn’t an agressive war of conquest. Had Saddam lived by the terms of the first cease fire, or never invaded Kuwait in the first place, that war would have never happened.

              “Besides this, WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE, and WAR IS A RACKET. I AM anti-war because I AM a Libertarian.”

              Now that is just tinfoil hat crap. From Vietnam until 2001, the US didn’t engage in any war of any size. Yet, the state went marryly on. Hell, Eurpe hasn’t been in a war in 60 years and their governments dwarf the size of ours. You may not agree with Iraq. It has been argued to death. Some don’t . I do. But for whatever reasons it was undertaken, it wasn’t undertaken to prop up the state whatever that means.

              1. John,

                The reasons behind a blockade are meaningless – States invent justifications for their aggressions all the time. The fact is that the blockade was putting a lot of economic hardship on innocents. Their politicians were under pressure to show they were “doing something”, thus the puny rockets they lobbed at Israel.

                With Iraq, it does not matter they ivaded Kuwait in 1991. They were NOT a threat to the US in 2002. The justification to invade that country had no basis in reality and you know that.

                And since when is the UN dictating policy for America? Whatever resultions were passed in the UN, they are not Constitutionally binding, nor are they a justification to send free Americans to die in another land without a clear Declaratio of War from Congress.

                John, the size of all those states grew after the wars happened – certainly the size of the US government grew much larger in this decade, thanks to 2 wars, than in previous decades. You are also forgeting the Cold War, which increased the military budgets of both the US and Russia. It was Russia that finally went bankrupt – seems like it is the US’s turn now.

                1. “The reasons behind a blockade are meaningless – States invent justifications for their aggressions all the time.”

                  What the hell are talking about? The reasons behind the blocade are not meaningless. There was no blockade until the Palistinians launched the intifada and started killing Israelis by the 100s. That is not an invented reason. The Palistinians brought the blockade on themselved by launching a barabaric campaign against civilians. That wasn’t an invented reason. And further, the blockade worked. It stopped the suicide bombing.

                  You talk about innocents. What about all of the innocents the Palistinians murdered? Do they even count? Do you no think that Israel has a right to defend its citizens? You only seem concerned about the death of Palistinians. Israelis seem not to count. Is no Israeli an inocent? How fucking dare you bythly claim that the blockade was put on for invented reasons. Invented reasons my ass. The Palistinians were blowing themselves up in busses on a pretty much weekly basis before the blockade. And they you say that the reasons don’t matter. That is the most disgusting ignorant thing I have read on here in a while. That is Joe Boyle level ignorant and offensive.

                  “With Iraq, it does not matter they ivaded Kuwait in 1991. They were NOT a threat to the US in 2002.”

                  We had two choices in 2002. The sanctions against Iraq were falling apart and were unsustainable. We could have either given up and gone home and hoped for the best or finally just ended it. We chose the latter. You can claim that was a bad choice. But you have the luxury of never having to explain the consiquences of the former. Regardless, your claim that it was an aggressive war launched for conquest is simply not true.

                  1. We could have either given up and gone home and hoped for the best or finally just ended it. We chose the latter.

                    Nothing has ended.

                    You can claim that was a bad choice.

                    Clearly it was, see above.

                    But you have the luxury of never having to explain the consiquences of the former.

                    Ah, yes, back to the ‘God exists because you can’t prove he doesn’t’ line of reasoning. You do a great impression of a Rove/Rumsfeld sockpuppet.

                  2. Re: John,

                    The reasons behind the bloc[k]ade are not meaningless. There was no blockade until the Palestinians launched the Intifada and started killing Israelis by the 100s. That is not an invented reason.

                    Yes, well, why was there an intifada in the first place, John? Don’t you think that the limited access the Palestinians have to the other territories, the virtual siege they are suffering by the Israelis and the encroaching of their lands by the settlements don’t have something to do with this?

                    The next thing you will tell me is that the US Army was justified to wipe out the Indians because they killed Custer. Not much different.

                    The Palestinians brought the blockade on themselved by launching a barabaric campaign against civilians.

                    No, the Palestinians did not do anything, John – that’s a cop-out. Murderous individuals were doing that – the rest are trying to go about their business. Let me know if the crimes of a few deranged individuals is enough to justify a blockade against a whole population of men, women and children.

                    By the way, a few Palestinians are also Christians, and equally mistreated by the Israelis.

                    You talk about innocents. What about all of the innocents the Palistinians murdered? Do they even count? Do you no think that Israel has a right to defend its citizens?

                    They do count – ask yourself if they are not the victims of their government policies, just as the 3000 Americans dead in 9/11 are not really the victims of a wrong-headed foreign policy as conducted by Billy and Bushy.

                    You only seem concerned about the death of Palestinians. Israelis seem not to count. Is no Israeli an innocent?

                    John, ALL civilians are innocent – the culprits are the states: the Israeli State and the Palestinian. Or to put it more simply: Their Politicians are the ones that have the blood of their civilians in their hands.

                    The Palistinians were blowing themselves up in busses on a pretty much weekly basis before the blockade. And the[n] you say that the reasons don’t matter.

                    They DON’T matter, John – no justification by a State matters. The criminal acts of individuals do NOT justify acts of war on whole populations. That is what’s immoral. You don’t seem to differentiate between individuals and whole communities.

                    We had two choices in 2002. The sanctions against Iraq were falling apart and were unsustainable.

                    The sanctions are irrelevant, John.

                    We could have either given up and gone home and hoped for the best or finally just ended it.

                    The US went home after the Korean war and hoped for the best, and that was under a more morally-minded president. Why not now?

                    Regardless, your claim that it was an aggressive war launched for conquest is simply not true.

                    Why would you say it is not true? Look at the evidence: The US Gov headed by Bushy launched an invasion on a prostrated nations taht did not have the wherewithal to threaten the US, under false pretenses (the so-called and mythical weapons of mass destruction.)

                    Whatever the reason chosen, the US Gov acted like an aggressor. The State sent the children of many to be killed in a war that was not needed.

              2. “Now that is just tinfoil hat crap. From Vietnam until 2001, the US didn’t engage in any war of any size.”

                //Ahem//

                Timeline of US mil ops 1970-1979
                Timeline of US mil ops 1980-1990

                Grenada? Libya? Honduras? Panama?

                I guess it depends how you define “any size”, John.

              3. “And suicide bombers getting on busses and killing 10s of innocent people is routinely portrayed as a legitimate form of warfare by the US media.”

                citation needed.

                (RE-COMMENT, since the above sort of zionist-praying statement should at least be backed up, don’t you think?)

                1. You used the term zionist. Thanks for revealing yourself to be anti-semetic piece of shit. I kind of guessed it. But thanks for confirming it. Now go the fuck away so Old Mexican and I can talk. The adults are talking and you are just fucking up the thread.

                  1. Anti-zionism and anti-semitism are wholly different things, and you goddamn know it. And of all the cards to pull, anti-semitism is the easiest–even easier than the Godwin.

                    I win.

                    1. Fine you win. Just shut the fuck up and stop screwing up other people’s conversation you stupid troll.

                  2. “And suicide bombers getting on busses and killing 10s of innocent people is routinely portrayed as a legitimate form of warfare by the US media.”

                    citation needed, John.

                    RE-RE-COMMENT.

                    1. Stop fucking up the thread you idiot. No one is talking to you. Old Mexican and I were talking. He actually has interesting things to say. You don’t. You are an idiot. You have nothing interesting to say. And doesn’t matter what anyone posts in response you are just going to blather on like you have a point. Go post on KOS or whevever the hell it is you came from and stop fucking up other people’s conversations.

                    2. While it makes sense to pick one’s battles, it is enjoyable to me that you completely avoid anyone’s arguments dispositive to your own. It portrays a character type of heroic bravery.

                    3. “Stop fucking up the thread you idiot. No one is talking to you.

                      No one except you.

                    4. John,

                      I just re-read all your comments.

                      You are no libertarian.

  3. Who Will Announce the Death of the Last Newspaper?

    Jews.

  4. “You won’t read about it in Editor & Publisher, but Editor & Publisher is folding”

    Conjuction juntion, what’s you function? I certainly ain’t no literary great, but shouldn’t the ‘but’ be ‘because’?

    1. “junction” What’s that law about typos in your own posts, motes in your own eye, etc?

      1. Episiarch’s Law.

        “If you make fun of someone else’s spelling, the probability of making a spelling errors yourself rises to near infinity.”

        1. “spelling error”

          Lo, it smites both the mighty and weak.

      1. To clarify, “it” is not referring to the title, it’s referring to the fact that Editor and Publisher is folding. This is clear when using “but”, much less so when using “because”.

  5. What about the Jumble? The Acrostic?
    Where will I get diagrams of mock Bridge games?
    Or the sage wisdom of Marilyn Vos Savant?
    Marmaduke, man. What about Marmaduke?

    1. Will no one think of the children (in Family Circus)????

    2. Will no one think of the children (in Family Circus)????

  6. So what’s what happens when you sneeze and hit Submit.

    1. “It’s like a sneeze, only… better.”

  7. Whatever horrible fate befalls the children of The Family Circus, I have no problem with it happening twice.

    1. They’ll be molested by Not Me.

      1. Nice way to actually make Family Circus’ humor (*cough*) funny.

      2. Is that Wacko’s new handle?

    2. One of the last Bloom County strips was of the cast wrap party. In it Olliver, the lone black character, appears with a round head drawn in the perfect Family Circus style. When asked where he is going after the end of the strip he responsds

      “Family Circus. They are busing me in.”

      Great strip.

  8. “promoted a blatantly left-of-center, pro-Democratic party agenda.”

    Having worked in a newsroom, I can tell you that “left-of-center” all depends on where you stand. For most newsroom types, left of center would be much, much further left than the average person probably would consider it. Think Pelosi.

    Newsrooms are the kinds of place where people roll their eyes at any comment or talk of Rush, Beck and other conservative radio hosts and dismiss with an open display of contempt anything they say, regardless of its quality, all while openly bragging about how great the ideas of NPR and HuffPo are.

    And then they sit on the phone and tell pissed readers they don’t have an agenda and that their politics don’t matter while down playing how liberal they really are.

    I’ve seen election coverage of Green party candidates that weren’t going to get 100 votes featured on the front page over Libertarian candidates IN THE SAME RACE that were going to get 300 votes.

    1. Seriously, it pisses me off thinking about it. No idea from Barney Frank is crazy or out in left field.

      Nothing done by NPR or HuffPo is ever wrong or biased, but anything said by Rush is considered crazy and not even worth the time.

      I’ve got former news guys I work with who had Endless EndThis War stickers for most of the Bush administration who took them off when Obama was elected.

      Yeah, they probably aren’t biased.

    2. They all claim they really aren’t lefties. But whenever a journalist is given an opinion collumn and allowed to let their mask down, they surpise always turn out to be lefties. Odd isn’t it?

      1. When Pelosi is your “left of center,” you don’t see yourself as a lefty.

      2. Not always, John. Not always.

        1. Almost always. I can’t think of one other than Stossel who turned out to be a conservative. And he is treated like a heratic.

  9. I think it’s more of a culture thing. Many reporters think of conservatives as rather gauche and perhaps smelly. But a cosmotarian like me fits right in.

    1. I agree about conservatives, by the way…

      1. “She smelled like soup. Beef vegetable soup.”

    2. you do know “gauche” means “left”, right?

  10. and I wish the 18 employees and extensive freelance networks of the two publications well.

    For real?

  11. Who Will Announce the Death of the Last Newspaper?

    One of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen in a movie was in Hellboy. (Yeah, I know, big shock). There was a piece of a newspaper that had a huge headline: “ARMAGEDDON!”

    So there’s a nuclear war, but those trusty, crusty journos show up for work anyway, because they’re so committed, and because people wouldn’t know anything was happening with only a bunch of mushroom clouds in the distance to clue them in.

    1. If we don’t print a paper that day, we never get to use that size typeface.

      1. WA-

        R!!

        (fuck the squirrels who wouldn’t accept the above as English script.)

  12. What a concept, paper.

  13. media is another way to win the war, very strong and dangeour weapon in hands of smart people

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.