Friday, January 09, 2009

Good News: Another DDBMSOWM Newspaper About To Bite The Dust

UPDATE:
This item appeared in the local fish wrap, the Pasadena Star-News on Thursday (the Star-News is part of the MediaNews group):

The San Gabriel Valley Newspaper Group on Wednesday eliminated an unspecified number of jobs as a part of a cost-reduction plan aimed at offsetting revenue shortfalls. "These moves, as difficult as they are, will fortify our company in the face of a tough economic market," said Fred Hamilton, publisher and CEO of the Los Angeles Newspaper Group, which includes the San Gabriel papers.

It is official that within 60 days, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer will either be sold, or become an internet only news source, or fold altogether.


I hope that it folds all together.


Now, to be clear, it is not good that people will be out of work. But, in this case, it has to come back to the reason that they will have been put out of work.


It is because the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream, Obama-Worshiping Media continues to be nothing but a shill for one side of the social and political side. And guess what side that is? Did you mutter "liberal"? Ding! Ding! Ding! You got it.


In Seattle, there are supposedly two newspapers. The P-I, as it is known locally and the Seattle Times. Both newspapers are left, and left-of-center. Now, that makes sense in the city of Seattle it self. But, both newspapers present themselves to a larger audience. Mostly in suburbs and even some rural areas. Not exactly hotbeds of liberalism. But, their model ends up giving nothing but the coffee-drinking, left-wing Seattle view of things. And, their left-wing censorship is astounding.


Take this reaction from David McCumber of the P-I reacting to the outrage that the newspaper deliberately would not print the photos of Islamic men being questioned by the FBI on suspicion of potential terrorist activity:





"I understand that people have a hard time with the concept that we get to decide what is news and what isn't, and what is fair and what isn't."





And, with that arrogance, the P-I is getting what it deserves. A slow, painful death.


And, it will not be alone.


There has been rampant speculation that the Ol' Grey Lady herself, The New York Times, could belly up as soon as May of this year.


I think that the DDBMSOWM's throwing in the towel and all but coronating the president-elect, Barack Obama, may have been the final nail in the newspaper coffin for many of these newspapers.


But it could be that some reporters who were touted as rising stars, Janet Cook of the Washington Post and Jayson Blair of The New York Times were too good to be true. Because they were and were caught in plagiarism or patently making stories up.


Or could it be advocacy "journalism" that always has a left-of-center tilt. Such as in the illegal alien debates. Rarely are the any stories about the cost of illegal immigration. But you will read sob-stories about the illegal aliens themselves.


What ever it is, it may take large newspapers to go under to wake up the industry. That it needs to get out of the cocoon that they are in and try to appeal to a wide audience. Not just liberals read newspapers.


Maybe the soon-to-be death of the P-I is what will be needed.


Or, a newspaper bailout!

7 comments:

Pasadena Closet Conservative said...

There's a reporter who has a blog where he keeps everyone informed of what's happening with the newspaper industry:
http://reporter-g.blogspot.com

Rightwingsnarkle said...

You sure do need your strawmen, doncha?

friedmsw said...

WOW! The New York Times!!Just goes to show you what the people really want.

Anonymous said...

60 days, and the print version is going off-line. I wish it were the Seattle Times instead, but you can't have everything.

Pat Jenkins said...

64 i do not like seeing "papers" taking a dive. i enjoy the morning paper. an eventual absence i do not welcome.....

skeneogden said...

"I understand that people have a hard time with the concept that we get to decide what is news and what isn't, and what is fair and what isn't."

And we as consumers get to decide who wins and who loses (unless the government bails them out).

The L. A. Times just raised its newsstand prices 50% and the paper is so thin it looks like a waif on a diet. You can't claim they don't have chutzpah.

DoorHold said...

"Take this reaction from David McCumber of the P-I reacting to the outrage that the newspaper deliberately would not print the photos of Islamic men being questioned by the FBI on suspicion of potential terrorist activity:

"I understand that people have a hard time with the concept that we get to decide what is news and what isn't, and what is fair and what isn't.""

We have SUCH a hard time with that concept we stopped buying your newspaper, sir. Wake the "F" up.

My local suburban Chicago paper has INCREASED their circulation by making the effort to be neutral.

They have had cutbacks, times are tough after all, and as a result they rely way too much on the Associated Press (soon to be renamed the Obama Press), but for in-house content they do a pretty fair job of being neutral.

Did I mention their circulation is INCREASING?