I grew up in NYC with the New York Times
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Net_Resident Feb 06, 2009 12:38 PM EDT |
I grew up in NYC with the New York Times. About 15-20 years ago is when I decided to actively avoid/boycott them. When I was a bit younger than that, I almost had a reverence for the NYT but as I matured and gained insight to their lies and manipulations, I not only lost all respect for them but I also grew to have contempt for them. I've never liked being lied to or manipulated and watching a major newspaper publication lying and manipulating public opinion that goes out to tens of thousands of readers really gives me a very dim view of that publication. It makes them out to be a sinister black hat in every sense of the word. I'm not so naive to think that there is any one single reliable source and I'm pretty sure that most people with a modest amount of common sense also realize the same. That is good side of the Internet, you can spend time cross checking against different sources for the veracity of a given claim. The bad side however is that many people do not have the time for this and that it is easy to cast lies and hoaxes on the net and not be caught or confess till the damage has been done. The further down side to this is that liars create a paranoid and distrustful public. For this reason I strongly hope that these lairs not only go out of business but get completely out of any kind of publishing. I don't want these lying rats to just scurry to another hole, setup shop and start their misinformation campaign again. I'm certainly not against free speech like the hard fringe left is but I do wish there was a way to insure that liars are quickly exposed, denounced and blacklisted from any decent publication. |
| Scott_Ruecker Feb 06, 2009 12:49 PM EDT |
The issue you speak of is not having the time to become truly informed, I can understand that but.. If you are not willing to take the time to be informed on something you want to know more about to be sure you are really informed, then it is 'your' fault for not being informed, not the other way around. I am not trying to play the blame game, just saying where I think the responsibility for being informed ultimately lies. |
| Net_Resident Feb 06, 2009 1:03 PM EDT |
However the reality is that many people get their news in sound bites, for better or worse. If worse, and if those people through the power of the voting booth are casting choices based on what is essentially a lie, then we all suffer. Their ignorance isn't limited to their small circle. |
| bigg Feb 06, 2009 1:11 PM EDT |
There are a lot of threads on this. One of the things that is overlooked is that the internet allows you to filter out the news you don't want to hear. If you're liberal you can read dailykos. If you're conservative you can read drudgereport. I'm not saying that either site is dishonest. As far as I know, most of what both sites report is factual. Yet it's like hearing a court case from only one side's lawyer. Everyone has facts to back up their existing opinions, but they never have facts from the other side. In that sense, I don't think it's necessarily good that newspapers should be replaced by the internet. I appreciate the attempts by LXer to publish pieces critical of Linux. If only all sites would do the same. Newspapers are dead. There's no question in my mind that they are. I'm not quite as willing to accept that the world will be better without them, though. Newspapers don't always present all sides of an issue (and that would be impossible) but more often than not, I can read any major newspaper and will encounter stories I don't like. You have to give control of the filter to someone else if you are to be really informed. |
| gus3 Feb 06, 2009 1:13 PM EDT |
"Print is dead." -- Egon Spengler, "Ghostbusters" |
| ColonelPanik Feb 06, 2009 1:51 PM EDT |
Print is not dead. But print sure isn't being put on dead trees. |
| vainrveenr Feb 06, 2009 2:06 PM EDT |
Quoting:There are a lot of threads on this. One of the things that is overlooked is that the internet allows you to filter out the news you don't want to hear.Although OTOH, it is can be easier to filter out and downright discard printed advertisements in newspapers (e.g, as distributed circular ads) than it is to avoid the same on the Internet (as email spam, banner ads, popups....etcetera) At the opposite spectrum, the task of filtering out the news and advertisements "you don't want to hear" would seem to be the most difficult for broadcast TV and radio. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 06, 2009 5:37 PM EDT |
> At the opposite spectrum, the task of filtering out the news and advertisements "you don't want to hear" would seem to be the most difficult for broadcast TV and radio. Exactly the rationall of the Fairness Doctrine. Because there were so few "broadcast" channels, and editorial bias would be so easy to use to control what people heard/read/saw. However, I think that argument is put on its ear by the distributed nature of the 'Net. How can the justify forcing me to read what I do not want to read? Wait, I guess the real issue is not whether or not they can do it, but only whether or not they can justify writing it into law. |
| tuxchick Feb 06, 2009 6:14 PM EDT |
Y'all might be familiar with the old saying, "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one." With the Internet, more people than ever have their own "printing press." |
| gus3 Feb 06, 2009 6:49 PM EDT |
And the motto of my website, the relevant First Amendment phrases: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." |
| techiem2 Feb 06, 2009 7:09 PM EDT |
Well, they're sure trying. It not like Congress/Courts/etc. pay much attention to the Constitution anyway...sadly. |
| tuxchick Feb 06, 2009 7:24 PM EDT |
Bad LXerers, you can't say those things. |
| helios Feb 07, 2009 3:31 AM EDT |
GenX never knew... Cabooses Records grow-the-list-if-you-like What will GenNext never know....? The Sound of the Morning paper hitting the door. Or window...If I was your paperboy. Took out about 2 a week for a while there. h |
| dinotrac Feb 07, 2009 9:21 AM EDT |
Come on everybody!! It's the bright new era of Obamalosi. Sunshine and Strawberries. Sweet joy and merriment. What could ever be better? And no -- those newspapers aren't biased!!! They're just enjoying the Big O. |
| gus3 Feb 07, 2009 10:16 AM EDT |
Print isn't dead. It just smells funny. (with apologies to F. Zappa) |
| montezuma Feb 07, 2009 11:00 AM EDT |
For many years newspapers like the NYT have made most of their money from classified advertising NOT from selling the newspaper itself. The advent of free internet based classified advertising such as Craigslist is the reason newspapers are in trouble. It has nothing to do with opinion pieces. If it was the Fox News which is strongly opinionated would be in trouble and it is clearly not. As well as many opinion pieces which are generally tilted left, the NYT does a lot of DAILY in depth primarily objective reporting of news. If it folded this would be lost. Where would this be replaced on the internet? The equivalent level of *detailed* daily reporting does not exist at present. I think those cheering on the demise of broadsheet newspapers have a short sighted and mainly partisan motivation. They are ignoring the good work that such publications have produced because they don't use that service. Alternative in depth reporting on the internet is not yet at the level of broadsheets. I hope for the sake of democracy in the US that if broadsheets fold that it develops further. We need it. |
| dinotrac Feb 07, 2009 11:57 AM EDT |
>It has nothing to do with opinion pieces. If it was the Fox News which is strongly opinionated would be in trouble and it is clearly not. Dumb logic. It presumes all opinions are equal. Opinions that make people decide that you hate the country and hate working people and pretty much everything that isn't in Manhattan, Boston, or California will not appeal to some people. |
| montezuma Feb 08, 2009 10:59 AM EDT |
Dino,
Your bias is showing unfortunately. There are destructive types on both sides of politics. Example "I hope Obama fails" Rush Limbaugh Moreover that destructive mentality makes for a good business model. Playing to a partisan audience is a sure fire winner. |
| Scott_Ruecker Feb 08, 2009 11:03 AM EDT |
All opinions are not equal Opinions are like...everybody has one. |
| montezuma Feb 08, 2009 11:09 AM EDT |
And?
The most popular part of the NYT judging from their e-mailed stats are exactly the opinion pieces. The most popular shows on Fox are O'Reilly and Hannity. Both shows are heavily opinionated. |
| Scott_Ruecker Feb 08, 2009 11:16 AM EDT |
I was just making the most general statement about opinions I could, I had nothing to say about anything other than that. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 08, 2009 11:45 AM EDT |
> All opinions are not equal True, they are as unequal as individual people are. And just as equal in their individuality. The problem with trying to assert "fairness" is that there are just as many opinions of "fairness" as there are individuals, also. So we end up with either individual opinion suppressed, and the resultant resentment, or a chaos of individual opinions clamoring at the same time. As a believer in private property, it is each newspaper's choice what to print in their own pages. Each station's decision what to transmit. However, I also believe that they should make their bias known up front. If I know what their bias is, I can filter what I see from that source. If, however, with a "fairness doctrine" or assertions of "fair and balanced", or worse yet a limitation on who may write/speak/transmit, then it becomes difficult to know their bias (or whose bias it is) and filtering for reality becomes impossible. Montezuma, Obama already failed. Just as all presidents before him. Dave Barry gave a great talk after Clinton's election, talking about the "failed Clinton presidency" when it hadn't even started yet. Funny, but true. |
| jdixon Feb 08, 2009 2:53 PM EDT |
> "I hope Obama fails" Rush Limbaugh If someone honestly believes that a Presidents stated policies will be bad for the country, what's wrong with hoping he fails at implementing them? He's not hoping that Obama fails as a person, but as a politician. By contrast, significant portions of the left hated Bush's guts and would have liked nothing better than to see him completely destroyed both as a politician and a person. And please note that I neither voted for Bush nor supported the majority of his policies. |
| Scott_Ruecker Feb 08, 2009 2:57 PM EDT |
Ok, please, extra pretty please let's not drag politics into this thread? The story is about newspapers, I know I know, but..please? Scott |
| jdixon Feb 08, 2009 3:03 PM EDT |
> Ok, please, extra pretty please let's not drag politics into this thread? Well, ignoring the fact that obvious but unstated political bias is one of the main reasons the newspapers are failing seems to be ducking the issue somewhat; but OK, I'll try to refrain. |
| dinotrac Feb 08, 2009 5:09 PM EDT |
montezeuma - I've never made any effort to hide my bias. Only dishonest people pretend to have not bias. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!