Slashdot Mirror
Internet Kills LA Times National Edition
Doc Ruby writes "The LA Times announced that it is folding its national edition on 12/31/04. The Times spokesperson said the paper's mission has been to reach 'key Washington, D.C., and New York audiences,' and that 'other electronic ways of reaching those audiences became more plentiful.' The folding edition will be replaced by "remote printing" by NewspaperDirect, and their email highlights, Top of the Times. Is this the way all our newspapers will be going?"
Is this the way all our newspapers will be going?"
No, they're just targeting the wrong audience.
why does it matter that an LA paper gets to New York audiences in paper form? Furthermore, if you were in NY or DC, why would you buy the LA Times? What news do that have that local papers don't? (Surely there must be papers with both slants locally).
www.newsstand.com
Egon told us 20 years ago that print was dead.
sig not found
My computer runnging Windows XP SP1 Home has a really weird problem. Everytime I try to log on it logs me in shows me my background for half a second and then immediately logs me out. This also happens for all the other accounts that my family uses.
I booted up into safe mode, downloaded, then ran a virus checker, found a worm in explorer.exe and removed it. I then rebooted and tried to log in again but that didn't fix the problem. So I went back to safe mode, and ran msconfig disabled win.ini system.ini and a bunch, but not all startup programs in msconfig. So I went back to safe mode to run msconfig again and disable everything to
see if that would work. Now the problem shows up in safe mode as well. I can't figure out what is going on. Can anyone help me?
It can't possibly be that we already have enough newspapers on the East Coast?
The internet is probably a good thing for newspapers, I doubt that it will become the be all, end all (though reading a broad sheet on the subway/train/bus is a bit of a pain). It's a great way to deliver content, to kep people apprised of things up to the minute, and it keeps our newsstands from being crowded.
this makes a great deal of sense. Online news is a much better way of getting news and as it catches paper newspapers become less read. I get almost all my news online right now, its quiker, there's more news out there, its more current, and its easier to navigate.
just my $0.02
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
I'm sure all slashdotters must be appalled by this!
where on earth will I get my porn?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Fourteenth Post!!! mod me up!
Slashdot reported today it will start a print edition.
Hey k3w1 h4x0r d00dz! I am a hot-shot computer user but am having trouble getting my "All Programs" button on my "Start" key to work properly. First I presses "Start" and then I mouseover the "All Programs" link by accident and the list of programs to run appears. By the time I having finished treating my own body like an amusement park (3 to 5 seconds) and try to click on "All Programs"... the STUPID LIST of ALL PROGRAMS DISAPPEARS!!!
This is extremely distressing. Even though I am a k3wl k3rn31 h4x0r, this is really stumping me. Please help!
What we really need is a nice method where all your news is synced to your PDA automatically every morning so you can read it on the way to work. However as much as I like electronic media you can't beat a real news paper sitting in the sunshine or in front of the fire
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Is this the way all our newspapers will be going?
No, not until our monitors can display resolutions as high as printed material.
Now, note that the "Washington Times", the "Wall Street Journal", and the "Economist" have experienced increases in circulation. The last journal, in particular, has experienced strong growth.
Similar comments apply to Fox News.
The conclusion is that less bias means greater popularity and larger numbers of subscribers.
Internet kills music industry Internet kills the movie industry Internet kills phone dating services Internet kills libraries Internet kills puppies, just the cute ones
I know I fall into the demographic that reads news nearly exclusively online, but I think this is just going to increase as paper-readers age and kids watch their parents (my generation) reading it online.
Frankly, papers are unwieldy; I'm always getting them out of order or tearing them, not to mention that they store germs quite well (so I hear) - no picking those up on the subway for me!
I think the biggest paper-killer, though, is that by the time the news is printed and in your hands, it's out of date. For local news where not much happens (or if it does, everyone immediately knows), a paper might still work - but for national/international news, it just lacks the immediacy of online news sources.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
They wanted desperately to compete with the NY times and all the other rather strong newspapers in the area with with their watered down version of a paper that is meant for people in LA. I wonder why no one wanted to read it.
What the LA Times was trying to do would be like Linux developers to trying to find their niche among old people.
You killed LA Times National Edition. You bastard!!
Let's look at the newspapers which are making a go of it with nationwide printings: USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and the NY Times.
USA Today - Marketed at travelers who might be interested in a snippet of hometown news. The McDonalds of newspapers.
The Wall Street Journal - Business oriented coverage with a solid conservative editorial page. The newspaper for Republican men.
The New York Times - Amazingly diverse coverage and in depth coverage, with excellent coverage of the Arts and a predictably liberal editorial page. The newspaper for literate urbanites.
The LA Time could have looked for another niche, but they basically are a poor clone of the New York Times. I used to read it quite often when I worked in LA and there is nothing about it that would recommend it over the other Times. Their whole market would be lonesome Southern Californians wanting to keep up with the music scene in Santa Monica.
It'd be nice if another newspaper could challenge the WSJ or the NYT for nationwide coverage. The Chicago Tribune and Washington Post have the potential to do so; I think the Post has the best liberal editorial page in the country, and the Trib is just a solid paper, but there is only so many people in the market for national papers.
Seems to be a rather popular scapegoat for companies with poor ( or outdated ) business models these days.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I only read online news. First, I get to read news for free since I don't have to buy the paper, but more importantly, I save time. For example, on CNN or any other news channel, they'll announce a story that you really want to hear as "coming up after the brake." After the brake, they'll go to something else, then something else, and so on. It will take 30-40 minutes before one sees that story. 24 news channels talk a lot with saying nothing, and you also have to see a ton of commercials. Online I can read the story, hear the story, and view the story wihouth having to wait on them and their commercials.
I like to read news on the internet (mainly those of larger national and internatial newspapers), but I won't
cancel my newspaper subscription. Its just nice to read in a real newspaper while commuting.
The internet can't replace that. I even started to buy a large weekly newspaper with in-depth reports.
Reading longer texts can be a pain in front of the computer and I prefer in those cases the dead-tree edition.
Give a man a fish... and he'll use an old newspaper to wrap it in.
Teach a man how to fish... and he'll use old newspapers from this day forth.
But did it seem to anyone else that the L.A. Times in the past year or two had gotten WAY too opinionated in their HARD NEWS stories? I mean, I read the LA times occationally, but it seemed somewhere around a year after 9/11 it became VIOLENTLY anti-Bush/anti-republican. I mean, ALL media sources have bias. Here in NY, we have the amazing NY Times. And yes, it has an "opinion" on world politics. Despite what conservative radio says though, I felt that the NY Times still kept it's job of presenting the news in a fair way. The opinion/Op-Ed pages of the NY Times rightfully had opinions (and twice a week has "conservative" writers), so I felt there was fairness there.
But... take a crappy (although sometimes guilty pleasure) newspaper like the NY Post. It's a tabloid newspaper that 4/7 times a week the front page headline will be "OH NO PARIS HILTON (did whatever)" or this week, despite all the news in the world, the #1 story that took the entire front page cover was some guy buying a $10,000 martini (i kid you not). (I always assumed "The Daily Beagle" from Spiderman was based on the Post)
Again... this is NOT a political flamewar/troll post... and I like listening to talkradio, but if I listen to Air America or Hannity, I know what I'm getting. They'll focus on the topics of "their" side. But... I don't want that when I read hard news. Luckily, the NY Times doesn't do that. A typical page 1 lately has the #1 story of the day, something about Iraq, some economy/employment article, a local (NY) story, and big international news. Perhaps a blurb/picture about a big sports event. While they will often have stories showing porblems in the Iraq war - hey, problems exist. But they also recently had a story of how women are regaining power in Iraq and schools are being rapidly built (sounds fair to me).
But the LA Times seemed like the NY Post at times. Did anyone else notice during the recall election there was a story about Arnold, and it was negative EVERY DAY? I mean, come on.
For disclosure, I voted Kerry and I voted Gore in 2000. I watch opinion shows for their opinions. When I read about hard news, I want the news, not spin (with the exception of the Op-Ed page). Perhaps (i'm seriously asking here, not flaming), is this why their publication numbers fell? Comments? Once again, and finally, this is NOT a political flamewar/troll post. Just my opinion.
Online newspapers are not a big success story. They cost a lot more to run (on a per-reader basis) than print editions, and they don't generate a lot of ad revenue. They're not going to replace print editions any time soon.
How many years ago was USA TODAY started?
Didn't it begin with the express business model of having personalized regional editions, with most of the stories being sent via satellite?
The clock's been ticking for a long time. Only the medium has changed.
It's a commercial BREAK. Faggot. Die.
While there are some people who live on the Internet, there are many others who enjoy reading a book or newspaper. Newspapers are not going away.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
The LA Times is a liberal newspaper, as are the NY Times and the Washington Post.
The LA Times wants to compete against the NY Times for the TV networks' attention, and for the legislators' attention in DC.
Outside of the TV news in NY, and the legislators in DC, both cities have HUGE liberal readers.
RSS feeds served to my inbox, News search engine (like google news), tons of free contents... honestly, I don't see how a 'paper' only can compete on a large scale basis. Sure, for local content its still a perfect solution (especially for small towns, etc). But aside from the ability to be read while in the bus (or in the bathroom I guess), it has no chance vs the Internet.
Internet killed the newspaper star? Maybe not, but crippled seriously, that's a sure thing.
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
-Waldo Jaquith
Amer1ca. You, It simple, never hheded
Web subscriptions or free through advertisements and newstands/vending machine print on demand is the future. This should be adopted by the major papers soon because I would really hate to see them go out of business as a newspaper is still the most reliable major media news by far over television and radio. TV and radio have way too much pressure to constantly have something to say so they make stuff up when it suits them. (remember when they were saying that 25 people died at in the columbine shooting when it was 13) Or that 25,000 people died on 9/11 when it was closer to 3,000.
Remote printing is fine for a short atricle or two, but I'd rather read it on screen, save the article on a drive, export it for eBook readers, etc.. rather than printing it out. Do these people know how expensive those ink cartidges/toners are? Heck, if having a print edition is important, I'd actually subscribe to one rather than pay $30/cartridge, 2 (made up number) cartridges/month. Even buying them on a newsstand for a full retail price everyday is a lot cheaper than them ink cartridges.
The parent article plays a typical Chinese game with words.
Many GNU/Linux contributor are retired and on pension or near there pension. Old people tend to use the internet to communicate a lot more then the working force people its not rare that they picked up Gnu/Linux because there whas a free communication tool that whas less hassle then there windows counterpart.
Ya gotta love it. Migrate from universal formats (HTML and paper) to a winduhs-only technology. Print on demand is a great idea, but once again the idiot pinheads prevail on implementation.
we will end no whine before its time
Is this the way all our newspapers will be going?
We can only hope.
Man, let me tell you how frustrating it is to walk out in whatever you woke up in, just trying to get your paper, and have the sprinklers hit you in the face. Maybe I'm just lazy, but online newspapers sounds interesting.
Oh yeah, and in Korea only old people read newspapers.
"I've gotta ask you about 'the Penis Mightier'"
Registered Linux User #398602
all the ones that insist on registration suck dirt clods, i have enough to remember besides another user name and password...
they would benefit more by making their on line newspaper more Spartan like http://www.drudgereport.com/ and forget all the fancy graphics and flash animation just keep it simple & light for low bandwith consumption, the more complicated html, javascript, css, and the rest is the more work you will be putting in to keeping your website updated...
The only reason to read a newspaper is read the columnists and local sports, and those you can get online.
The actual news is Associated Press anyway (look at the bylines) and so often the same story just gets repeated. Those same feeds are also picked up by the TV syndicates, and they are doing a great job on the web. For real news, Fox, CNN, MSNBC web sites are just killing print. If I want diversity, I can check out the web sites for anything from Al Jazeera to the Wall Street Journal. The automotive section of most newspapers fails compared to dedicated content like C&D, Motortrend, or Autoweek online.
This is my sig.
Outside of the TV news in NY, and the legislators in DC, both cities have HUGE liberal readers.
Michael Moore notwithstanding, not all liberals are huge.
I hope newspapers don't die out. Doing the crosswords in the paper is a lot more enjoyable than on the internet. And my regional paper prints the comics in color. That's always fun. Don't forget about classified ads. A great way to find a job.
...does this mean that businesses can ADAPT to mitigate the effects the internet has on them?
Wow, I can't believe it's possible to alter a business model instead of buying laws to outlaw the things that would negatively affect it.
Quick, someone tell the RIAA and MPAA!
The LA Times is owned by the Chicago Tribune, and there is a story there:
The Tribune behemoth has been plauged with problems following the falsification of circulation numbers at two of the company's papers. This caused a large drop in circulation in those papers and led to people getting fired. As a public company, the Tribune management is desperately trying to keep its shareholder happy in order to prevent/minimize shareholder lawsuits alleging fraud.
At the same time, the LA Times has been bleeding money (which might otherwise be allowed on a short term basis). Everything within the Times is under scrutiny. I'm not suprised that things are getting the axe, and I don't expect this to be the last thing to go.
The newspaper people used to call me all the time to try to sell me their product (before the Do Not Call list). I almost enjoyed being called, because after they went over how great the paper supposedly is and asked if I would be interested in subscribing, I'd respond, "I read all my news on the Internet. Print media is dead." They loved hearing that.
yadda, yadda, yadda. Video killed the radio star, the internet killed the video star, the sub-etha net will kill the internet star and soon the government brain implants will kill that. Wake me when the paradigm has shifted again.
If 'they have the time to make reasoned, thought out comments about what has happened the previous day', then why don't they? Or is it just the UK papers that are written by monkeys?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
The problem with liberals like you is you can't put things in perspective. To me, the murder of children -- wherever it occurs -- secures a higher priority of national concern than some dog yapping at the feet a naked terrorist.
It's not so much bias, as not admitting you have bias.
There is a difference between bias in the editorial section and the news section.
You knew they were gunning for now Gov. Arnold. You knew they were playing up the prison scandal because they wanted to undermine Bush, not because they though pointing at penises were the worst things in the world.
The Internet now helps us understand what the Mainstream Media (MSM) doesn't report. And that reveal their bias more than anything.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Cars killed horses. Phone killed the telegraph. TV killed the radio star.
The jobs haven't been lost, they just moved to another market. Should we stop progress just because it creates products that replace others?
Cheers,
Adolfo
Motorized vehicles (horseless carriages) kill the horse and buggy industry! Story continues on page A5.
LA Times announced that it is folding its national edition
Folding it, eh? I wonder if they'll enter it in the national origami championships?
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
People look to it for government reporting.
Honestly I can't think of any other paper you might want to consider as a "national newspaper."
Someone you trust is one of us.
if many of the smaller, regional newspapers "fold" and perhaps turn to online ventures, that surely will save a lot of paper. not to mention, it would perhaps increase the journalistic qualities of many online news sources, due to the sudden inflow of competition.
I can't find it on the web to verify it, but I believe it was newspaper icon H. L. Mencken, some seventy years ago, who said, "I asked the bellhop to bring me a newspaper. The poor fellow must have been deaf, as he brought me a copy of the Los Angeles Times."
Someone you trust is one of us.
IMO this is part of the reason so much online news and TV news sucks. There is immediacy, but no depth. News agencies fall over each other to get the scoop on a story, but when I live in California is it *really* worth knowing that scant details about some breaking story from Lithuania at 10:13 am when a much more detailed and informative story will be showing up in the NYT or the Post a few hours later?
I'd rather absorb news from a source that is checking facts, looking at all of the angles, providing relevant contextual information, and giving me a deeper understanding of the issues involved.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The newsstand editions are pdf type recreations of the printed product that are sold as an "electronic subscription" so it is counted as paid circulation by the ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulations).
There is much abuzz in the newspaper land about digital paper, etc attempting to retain the 3-dimensional quality of a newspaper page with all the "electronic" customisation and entertainment value.
Personally this and the whole newsstand model are nothing more than newspaper death masks.
The demographic shift towards on-demand personalised news based upon relevancy and context and delivered using the same criteria are forcing the geographically focused media outlets into a scramble for niche products with broad subscriber appeal. You will see smaller one-paper towns focusing on, say, the local wine industry and build a subscriber base around this topic while depending upon banner advertising to support the rest of the news.
Newspapers with solid national brand awareness are in the same situation but are segmenting into areas of relevance leveraging their existing brand identity as authoritative source of "x" news be it politics, national security, entertainment.
Deep pocket and forward thinking national newspaper brands are agressively transforming the print brand into a multiple media brand. The NYT is the best example of this execution.
Wire services, such as AP, fill most newspapers in the US today as most are AP members. AP is a consortium. In the future you will most likely see AP going direct to the consumer and competing with the large multiple media outlets such as Gannett, Knight-Ridder, Tribune and NYT who are currently members.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Sure.
The LA "International" Times merely wanted to exert "progressive" influence on the United Nations and the US Federal Government. They couldn't tilt the playing field they way they wanted because there were too many others using blogging, forums, and email to present alternate views and news that nullified the LA "International" Times world view.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
To me, the murder of children -- wherever it occurs -- secures a higher priority of national concern than some dog yapping at the feet a naked terrorist.
So we have not only a straw man going on, but also a falsehood. Saying the murder of children is a higher priority is a distraction. Why bring up that it's not a "high priority" and then proceed to argue about it?
And how about the fact that these "naked terrorists" are mostly innocent civillians (according to ICRC) ? Would you feel different if it was your son or father this happened to?
And you are ignoring the fact that a lot worse was done that "dog yapping at the feet". Inmates of Abu Grhaib have been murdered and raped.
In two decades this entire industry will be gone. Not one paper, the entire industry. And yes, by that time you will be able to view digital content at paper resolutions.
Why do people love papers so much anyway? Most just get stock AP and Reuters content and repackage it...there is a huge amount if repeated content.
Mostly they have become transport mechanisms for huge multipage ads.
Google News is probably the best vision we have today - dynamic, unbiased, algorithmic. When you can build your own "newspaper", why bother accepting anyone else's format?
"Seems to be a rather popular scapegoat for companies with poor ( or outdated ) business models these days."
Everyone has a poor and outdated busines model. Slashdotters just haven't fingered the particulars yet.
The Internet will replace the food industry. We all will suck on bits, and bytes.
The power industry is obsolete. The Internet will power our homes, and businesses.
The health care and funeral industry is obsolete. The Internet will heal the sick, and raise the dead.
The space craft industry is obsolete. The Internet will travel to other planets, bringing back strange and wonderous creatures.
The sex industry is obsolete. You don't really want to know what one can do with a cable modem.
The communications industry is obsolete. The Internet will use something known as magic to...well work it's magic.
Note that in all the examples of [Insert obsolete industry here], the outcome is that we will never leave the house. Way to progess humanity forward people. If the Matrix comes for us? It will not have to move the bodies. Just cocoon the couch.
Firstly: I have a relative who works in I.T. for a major paper. I've been in there many times watching columnists watching TV and writing their stories. The papers are loosing popularity because they are selling old news. Secondly: The papers, unfortunately, are still not dying. Just because few are buying them does not mean they are dying. Papers can not afford to cease publication. They make a huge profit on the advertising in them -- so much so that readers are not really that relevant. What you pay for a paper is so insignificant it does not even cover the cost of actually printing what is in your hands and nearly every paper could afford to continue to publish even if they gave away the papers themselves for free. In other words: Papers are not longer printed for readers. They are printed for advertisers who must be convinced that the paper is a viable means of advertising. When they have done so, they have a successful paper. Thus, this paper died because it couldn't con enough advertisers -- pure and simple. The net really had nothing to do with it.
Mod me up, mod me down, flame me, praise me -- whatever you do, you help prove I exist...
they are dead. we all need to move on. what should replace them are what i call the micropress. note this is just an idea, no cost analysis has gone into this, though i think in conjunction with national/government news releases and national lottery-blah-blahs such a booth could end up costing next to nothing.
the idea is that newspapers get printed on demand. and the best part is that users of the micropress can print a selection of articles from internet and old-style print papers.
users would go to their usual corner stores and buy newspaper subscription cards which could either be the size of a credit card or memory sticks (like those used in digital cameras).
these cards store a users publication preferences as well as some form of digital money. the user slots the card into the micropress and either modifies their preferences and pay though the corner store system or just print out their daily paper.
to further subsidize the micropress, a google-style aggregator could also provide recommended articles based on a users selection. so even if a user isnt interested in world issues (which is unlikely) those articles can still be recommended because to some degree they can and do affect local issues as well.
the micropress is really just a glorified web browser that filters out everything else on the internet and only displays news sites and possibly even certain blogs. who determines the news? a consortium made up of both the private and public sector and maybe even sanctioned by the government (hello china).
what do you all think? how many of you actually go out of your way to read a newspaper? and i am not talking about picking one up that is lying around in a coffee shop.
Yeah, slashdot is always up to the minute and never repeats the same story ad infinitum.
Frankly the internet is too limited. Everyone wants to make a point -- quickly! -- so they leave out stories that might be interesting to the slow and thoughtful.
Can you give me a good reason why someone in New York or Washington, D.C. would be interested in the Los Angeles Times? And if you can, are there enough people in those two cities who want to read that paper and is the coverage that good they would skip over local newspapers?
I don't think the interweb had that much to do with this though I'm sure it hastened the process.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
Really?
Boy,that 0.5% difference in viewpoints really mean a lot to you...
In democracies, it is getting harder to get viewpoints that are different.
Convergence being an important force.
In Canada, the english media is dominated by CanWest Global which owns most anglo papers as well as GLobalTV. It is run like most papers exeptin this case the owners openly tell canadians that they censor the news to their tastes.
No wasting time pretending that there are actual viewpoints, only what they perceive the truth to be.
The Ukraine election is the best example of how the news pack mentality works.
This is the 4th electionfraud/overthrowing in 4 years done the exact same way by the exact same people and where half the population has one viewpoint but as always, we get one side of the story.
Considering the deep, deep anti-semitism that runs through the 'democratic' side, Im a little surprised that the jewish lobby hasnt jumped on it, then again those parasites dont mind anti-semites
when it suits them. Kurt Waldheim's known nazi past and Croatian president writes anti-holocaust book (not 6 but 2 millions) yet gets invited to holocaust memorial opening.
The LA Times announced that it is folding its national edition on 12/31/04.
;-)
Big freaking deal. I folded a newspaper this morning. There's a good chance I'll fold another one tomorrow! Kudos to them for attacking this very tough project on New Year's Eve, but seriously, the LA Times can crease, bend, and crush newsprint to their heart's content and I still won't care. Unless it's really cool origami
The Times decision runs much deeper. Combine the recent disclosure that the Times (along with the NYTimes, Chicago Trib and a few other publications) has its own Enron disaster brewing. For years, these publications had been cooking the books on paid circulation. These false numbers determine how much the papers could charge for advertising. By fabricating high subscription levels, they were able to capture significant amounts of revenue they were not entitled to. Imagine if your cellular company tacked on 20% more time to every phone call on your bill, and did the same to every customer.
Now that they've been cornered, the publishers and editors are retaliating against the public for exposing their fraud. (In a sense, since the subscription fraud came from the top, who would they fire?) They blame you Slashdotters and other online fools for their loss in numbers, and if the numbers hadn't gone down, they wouldn't have had to make them up. You and all the stupid freaking bloggers are to blame. So they're taking away the only "legitimate" news and leaving you all to the pajama-wearing losers posting to Slashdot and blogs from their bathroom.
Think I'm kidding? Talk to your friends who work for a major newspaper (top 50 metros ought to do) and they should be able to confirm it. Newspapers are scared and angry. Losing the election to a monkey after exposing their bias didn't help either, and as many experts have concluded, it was the media that is suffering the consequence of the exposed hand.
Now, be a good Slashdotter. Put down the PC. Go buy a nice magazine or something...
As others have pointed out, your comments about bias are just stupid, and your link to the Tibet site is nonsensical. The Abu Ghraib story was huge and important news. Stories about Saddam Hussein's torture were perhaps newsworthy when they broke, during the 1980s and early 1990s. And they were covered by all the papers mentioned during that time (including front-page coverage). But obviously stories that involve Americans are considered more newsworthy by American papers.
Your examples of bias don't wash. There were negative stories about Arnold during the recall because the story of the democratic process being hijacked by an action movie star who refused to even discuss his political positions publicly was big news! The groping scandal was stupid, but the stories were true and credible, and the LA Times would have been foolish to ignore them. If you want to look at bias during the recall campaign, look at the free ride Arnold got in the electronic media, some of whom even ran the movie "Total Recall" in the leadup to the election.
... and the young ones don't read at all.
Granted there are negative aspects to Stoicism, but the more I practice, the more I belive it is Man's only salvation.
Complete agreement. Oddly, people in some metro areas seem to grasp this concept better than those in other areas. At least, that's my (limited) experience.
:-)
I wouldn't expect anybody outside California to read or even care about the SF Chronicle, however great it is. Yet more than one friend from the DC area has reacted with condescending shock when informed that we don't read the Washington Post. (I've read it; it had the same basic stuff as the Chronicle, just with a DC slant rather than a SF one. It certainly didn't make me feel like I'd ever been deprived of anything by not reading it otherwise.)
Just my experience, though. I might just know extremely DC-centric people and not enough SF-centric ones or something.
and with all the speed you can do it.
a sharp lcd on a sony product? interesting tho i wonder why.
go ahead mod me as a troll
_ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist
The WSJ has a "solid conservative editorial page", but the NYT has a "predictably liberal editorial page"?
:)
Since you're a libertarian and not a conservative, then was it accidental that you didn't write that as "predictably conservative" and "solid liberal"?
Well I'm not a liberal either, and both papers are conservative corporate propaganda sheets IMHO.
As mentioned elsewhere, the LA Times doesn't have national appeal and it's in a market with heavy competition. The management is probably transferring blame to the Internet in order to save face, but restricting distribution seems to me to be a prudent move on their part.
I think the biggest paper-killer, though, is that by the time the news is printed and in your hands, it's out of date. For local news where not much happens (or if it does, everyone immediately knows), a paper might still work - but for national/international news, it just lacks the immediacy of online news sources.
do we really need split-second news reporting 24-7? the tiny tiny tiny % of people who's day-to-day functioning depends on knowing exactly what happened the moment it does don't get their news from either newspapers or the internet.... they've got an AP or reuters wire in the office, or more likely, a branch in the relevant location
for the rest of us, ya know, news that's a day or so old is really not the end of the world... where i live, the english language newspapers are three days behind, because they are just translations of the local papers, but i don't mind one bit... i get most of my news fresh, from the bbc and salon, and then happily read it again in the paper three days later, mostly because i'm interested in the local editorial slant
so, wherever the future of news reporting is, i just don't buy the timeliness argument much anyway... people like newspapers
There was a note on the front of the Guardian yesterday about their ciculation. 377K copies a day but 10.5 million unique users of their website.
There's also a trend that papers over here in the UK are moving from broadsheet to tabloid format to save money.
Given this and the competition from mobile phones, 24 hour TV news channels and the net, I think daily papers are coming to the end of their useful lives. I still like to sit with a paper at the weekend though.
Sig pending!
I think newspapers and magazines will be largely replaced by the Internet but that books will retain their popularity.
Newspapers will be replaced because usually articles are short and are more interesting the sooner you read them after the topic events happened.
Magazines are largely similar - especially technology or current events magazines will be threatened by the Internet.
Books won't really be at risk though because it's more pleasent to read a paper book than a screen and the contents of books are less time sensitive.
Magazines that are less time sensitive will also be okay as again they are more pleasent to read than online magazines. Newspapers aren't really pleasent to read.. the format is more annoying to deal with than magazines. I think of all printed media they will suffer the most due to the Internet.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
The scandal is that some newspapers have been overstating their readership in order to boost drooping ad revenues.
My astigmatism makes it harder to read computer screens than print on paper, but dead tree media is just yesterday's news. It can't compete. It's dead, but just doesn't know it yet.
Or, you could have just entered "Wired" in your search terms. :)
Fact is, I've been included in a bunch of media outlets' coverage for various reasons -- CNN, AP, ABC News, Wall Street Journal, MTV, VH1, New York Times, Boston Globe, and, in fact, Slashdot not the least of 'em (including "ACLU Joins Fray Over Cyber Patrol Censorware" and "Artificial Intelligence At The COPA, COPA Commission").
I'm a big goober.
-Waldo Jaquith
A "couple of incidents"? Three years of US Army massacres across Iraq, for no good reason? Abu Ghraib torture is the official policy of the military and their unaccountable "contractors". You are defending torture and murder of people caught in the US agenda for Iraq. Nevermind that the agenda is corporate exploitation of everyone in Iraq, America, and anywhere else available - including you. You even bring up that "quaint" Geneva Convention. Bush's White House lawyer, Gonzales, produced the indefensible policy statement ignoring the Geneva Convention, and has now been promoted to head the Justice Department.
Look, just admit that you're a bloodthirsty American with no conscience or interest in consequences. Stop pretending that justice or international law even cross your mind, except as a possible side argument you'll have to lie about on Slashdot. You've got your Iraq bloodbath, your people are running the country. Take of the mask of justice, and gloat over the abundance of carnage to feed your bottomless hunger for destruction. sumdumass
--
make install -not war
The rightwing mob depends on "silent snipers", like modders who disagree with a post, so mod it down rather than dispute it. They have no argument; there is no argument, they are interested only in "winning", then they're incompetent to use what they've won. This is true from the schoolyard bully to Bush's White House. It's why they like guns: the "great equalizer", perverting the word "equality" to mean a loser can win, when he's selfish, violent and hateful enough. Remember that there are lot more "silent sympathizers" out here, each of us a small part of a front that is organized only by individual conscience. Which is stronger and smarter than the zombie army shambling towards us.
--
make install -not war