Comments on: IT’S ALL ABOUT EYEBALLS

By: J Winstead...old fart

J Winstead...old fart — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:25:39 +0000

I think your point is a good one…many people today don’t read or find out the facts about what they think they believe…because in many cases the facts do not verefy what they think may be true, be they conservative or stupid liberials. Thus, they don’t want to hear the facts. So how do opposite opinions reconcile what is fact or incorrect when both sides think the other is stupid? I would think a common ground based on definitions of “words”, both sides can not manipulate, would be a start.
As an example…one might say their advocation is a “Libertine” blogger when ,perhaps, they really mean “Libertarian”. So…whats the difference? Well…alot. A “Libertine” (accourding to Webster) is “a dissolute or licentious person” in other words a “pervert”…whereas a “Libertarian” is one who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state”. Stuff
happens…but, if one sets themself up to be an expert at certain matters, they really ought to know the definition of what they claim to be…or what it is. Perhaps if thinking people, conservative and liberal alike (contrary to popular belief…both do exist) paid more attention to the above , there would be less invective and
more solutions to those problems that vex us all today.

today.

By: Rick Moran

Rick Moran — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:13:14 +0000

That’s some pug you got there - a lovely pup I’m sure. But it isn’t just attention span. It is the complexity of the modern world that has people throwing up their hands and giving up trying to understand.

That and a cynicism about the point of view of the information overlords who are now being challenged. Not necessarily by blogs (and I agree. If anyone dared call me a journalist I’d whop ‘em upside the head). But the information is out there if you are willing to spend a little time looking for it. This is where the net is changing all media - and it’s only going to get easier to find things of interest as the technology explodes in the coming years.

Dead tree publications will have to adapt. How, no one knows. But as long as there is money to be made with straight news, I suspect someone will try.

By: sknabt

sknabt — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:02:06 +0000

I’ll trade you the Houston Chronicle for my hometown paper, the Richmond-Times Disgrace, a right-wing rag whose editorial page should be printed on a roll. It makes RWNH here look absolutely liberal as Hades by comparison.

But ain’t that the problem? We’re always looking for sources to tell us what we want to hear?

What I find dangerous isn’t the much whined about msm. NewsBusters’ site whines they’re liberal and data mines some examples. MediaMatter’s site whines they’re conservative and data mines some examples. Both only pick on a small fraction of the news released on a daily basis.

What really bothers me is the growing trend of people seeking out biased sources. Political/news blogs are an outlet for personal outrage and opinion. It’s people imitating the talk radio phenomena which is pure spin.

I believe in freedom speech. I hail blogs. I run one with a buddy. But anyone who looks to them as a key source of information needs a brain scan.

By: Larry (your brother)

Larry (your brother) — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:41:31 +0000

The problem with current news reporting, in whatever medium, is that it needs to appeal to a population with the attention span of my pug (whose attention span, while long for a pug, is short for a sentient being). Look at the newspapers in the 5 largest metropolitan markets and there may be one or two I will sit and read regardless of editorial content. USA Today? TIME? SI? All have the same problem. Most choose not to challenge readers by trying to explain issues in detail. The result is that people that run newspapers try to find more and more ways to make the publication appealing to the eye. Usually, that means catchy headlines, stupid pictures, silly and short stories, and color. I have taken the Mpls paper for the better part of 33 years, and we are pretty sure we will cancel our subscription after the elections in November. I am tired of hunting for the news.

But the timing of our decision illustrates the problem: for most people, news is LOCAL. Yes, I can go to the online edition, but annoying ads and reading the newspaper on a screen is irritating and not comfortable–I can’t put my feet up, have the baseball game on, and have a drink.

Blogs aren’t the answer. I prefer my news less varnished and more than half baked. While I find blogs interesting, I don’f find them informative.

The real answer, as it has always been, is to go to many sources and try to distill the “truth” from various voices. That’s why major cities always had two papers (The Chicago Tribune and The Chicago Daily News, when we were growing up) with different editorial views. So what happens now? Those various voices scream so loud at each other that I can’t stand listening.

I fear for the future of the Republic.

By: ed

ed — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:38:45 +0000

Local newspapers can only offer one thing that is relatively unique: in-depth coverage of local events and using resources to do in-depth investigative stories. My local left leaning rag, the Kansas City Star, recently had a multi-part investigative series on, of all things, the temperature of fuel at the gas pumps. Fuel is supposed to be metered out at 60 degrees F to meet standards of volume purchased. Most fuel is a lot hotter, leading to not getting the amount paid for. Some states are looking into how to deal with the issue because of the story. Local television cannot invest the time needed to present such stories. It is something almost unique to papers that gives them meaning in today’s world.

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:51:24 +0000

My only source of news is the RightWingNuthouse. If it’s not here, it doesn’t exist.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:12:28 +0000

Karen,

We are fortunate to live just outside of Pittsburgh and subscribe to the daily Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (pghtrib.com). This is a Libertarian newspaper, however, the stupid Liberals can’t tell the difference between a Libertarian and a Conservative so they repeatedly slam the Trib.

Unfortunately, we are surrounded by Democrats as they are the majority party here in Western Pennsylvania. These Dems are unique, however, and will vote Republican when the issue is lowering taxes and national security. We all know that most Dems LOVE more taxes and are WEAK on national security and crime.

The other daily newspaper here in Pittsburgh makes the N. Y. Times look like the National Review. The Post-Gazette manipulates and slants the news using lessons learned from Pravda. It is just a den of slimy, Liberals, Socialists, Bolsheviks and fellow travelers.

The Trib website is above and I recommend the editorial and opinion page. After all, if so many Dems and scummy Liberals hate it you know it can’t be all bad.

By: Karen

Karen — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:39:22 +0000

We subscribe to the Houston Chronicle as we have no choice in the nation’s 4th largest city. One newspaper. It’s crap but all we have. The liberal bias is breathtaking on a regular basis, to the point that if both sides of a story are presented then I am pleasantly surprised. I find myself mostly skimming it for local interests. As a conservative I sure don’t feel very welcome in Chronicle land. I’m a news junkie so I have on the cable news shows to keep up with what’s going on during the day. Subscriptions are down at the Chronicle but the message is not being received.