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
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
In other news:
Internet Kills local user's Windows XP Home
where on earth will I get my porn?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Slashdot reported today it will start a print edition.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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
The problem [phrusa.org] with the "Los Angeles Times" and the "New York Times" is that most Americans perceive them to be biased. For example, the Abu Ghraib story ran 19+ times on the front pages, but the story about Saddam Hussein's torture of women and children ran far fewer times.
Wow, so they suffer from the same accusations as Slashdot of being too US-centric?
I would have taken it for granted that crimes by the US government would be of greater interest to the US public than crimes by a foreign dictator and would get more US press attention. Guess my vision is too narrow.
Were they upset by the massive coverage of the US elections in those publications compared to coverage of the Norwegian elections as well?
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
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.
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
Perhaps so, but they want details of my household income (!) before they'll tell me about it.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
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
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.
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.
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.
Before he does anything drastic like returning it, it might just be a simple error like not having enough peanut butter on his CD's.
Get your windows CD and cover the shiny side ( don't make the mistake of putting the butter on the label side, we'd laugh at you then ) in a nice even layer about 5mm thick and place it in the drive and restart your computer.
Aftr this simple step, viruses will not bother you again.
The news wasn't that torture was going on in the world. The news was that the USA (you know, the "good guys") was joining in on it.
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.
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.
Ah, but the "Public Editor" is not a "senior editorial" position. It's rather akin to an ombudsman
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
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.
I congratulate you on your humanitarianism and your international perspective. Given your concerns I can see why you would be irritated by the undeniable fact that the vast majority of murders of children worldwide are not reported in the US national media. I encourage you to make your interests known and maybe things will change.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
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.
Ha, don't worry yourself Ralph about my interests being made known -- that's about six weeks passed now. Lately I'd say the it's the dog who's actually doing more about stopping terrorists from murdering children (certainly to the dismay of you and the NY Times).
No dismay here, merely puzzlement. It sounds as though you're the same person continuing a conversation, but if so then just now you were concerned about the reporting of child murders and now "that's about six weeks passed". What passed, no more child murders going unreported? I think you'll find that most child murders still aren't reported in the US. Not that I'm surprised or inconvenienced by that, just that I thought it was a source of dissatisfaction for you.
As to the bit about this dog stopping terrorists from murdering children... well done dog! Good thing we can still get the news from Disney.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
So are you planning your trip to Sudan soon to save all the children there? No? Oh, so you only care to KNOW about children being murdered. Well that doesn't help much, does it? Especially not as much as KNOWING when government officials screw up, because unlike Saddam or the murders in Dafar our government changes its behavior when public ridicule embarrasses it internationally. Oh well, the great part about 2004 is that you can log on to Foxnews.com and find out every bad thing Saddam did wrong, and I can count on liberal national papers to embarrass our leaders (who deserve it by way of their actions) internationally and force them to change their wrong behavior.
Open Source Sushi
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
Ah, I think I understand you now. Your concern isn't with issues of children being killed or of prisoners being mistreated. Your concern is with using those and other issues as part of some team game. The game is over and your team won or lost therefore the children cease to concern you. Have I got it right?
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
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!
The thing is that the news media can:
-embarrass local and national leader to force them to reform.
The news media cannot:
-invade other nations to remove murderous leaders (otherwise most of Africa would have been invaded by now)
Are you expecting too much out of the news media then? I prefer the news organizations effectively use what influence they have, then try to gain powers they don't.
Open Source Sushi
I'm worried, do you people have anything close to philosophy classes in high school? Or do you go alligator hunting instead? Let me put it in clearer terms: your reasoning is that of an uneducated redneck.
The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.
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?
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.
You've gone general, so educated people like me don't give a fuck about your accusations.
Since I didn't make any accusations, it's probably fortunate that you don't give a fuck about them.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
I prefer the news organizations effectively use what influence they have, then try to gain powers they don't.
I expect the news to observer and report. Leave it to those that read the papers to do the reforming.
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
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".
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
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.
All the major newspapers seem to carry the same stories. Nobody seems to dig for the real truth or the opposing viewpoint anymore. As a result, I've totally lost interest in newspapers - paper or electronic.
Give me a newspaper that shows both sides of every story.
If I'm going to get crap news, I might as well get free crap news. If I get different, interesting news, I'll be willing to pay for it.
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.
Unfortunately the news media (which is very consolidated) determines what will be reformed when they decided to pick things on which to "observe and report." Even an so called unbiased news outlet theoretically can't chose to report on every single item every person in the audience feels is "newsworthy." Instead, they chose what to report on based upon their limited time, and the attention created by the reporting results often in reform. Until the news reports it nowadays, its hard to get an issue into the public sphere to be reformed. Therefore a paper like the NYTimes's power is what it lets on the front page. As a current-event newspaper, it decided to report on the breaking story at Abu Garib rather than reporting stories about Saddam that haven't been relevant since before we invaded.
And I'll be the first one to admit that the fact that the NYTimes continues to harp on such story DOES mean that the organization has a huge bias. The powers that be in the paper want to make sure that the scandal stayed on the American tongue by keeping it on their front page. Even though this is not admirable, the fact is that all new organization (by way of decided what to report about in their limited time/space to do so) have bias. In the modern age, though, I think we are lucky that outlets like the NYTimes and Foxnews are very obvious with their bias. That way people don't get tricked into blindly following one source that claims to not have the bias that it must have. They keep up a front for posterity ("fair and balanced") but the truth is that the CBSs, Foxnewses, and the NYTimeses of the world do use a favor by allowing us to correctly assume what they chose to report on. They way you get the bias you want in your news.
Open Source Sushi
and with all the speed you can do it.
Yes! I love the liberal national papers, they uncover the truth. We all know Bush is a crook! We know George W. Bush has not captured Osama bin Laden so that Ann Coulter, oil companies, Rush Limbaugh, the Christian Coalition, and Republicans could conquer transgendered people.
George Bush Banned my IP Address!
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.
The problem is, many people in Abu Ghraib were innocent.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
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
That "terrorist" is innocent until proven guilty. No trial occured - he, and everyone else at abu ghraib, is yet to be tried, and therefor innocent until proven otherwise.
Seeing as the US invaded Iraq because of Iraq's apparent unwillingness to comply by international rules, US troops violating international law is a big story - it kind of highlights the ridiculous hypocritical attitude of the US. There would be outrage if that was a US soldier being abused by Iraqis, but as it's the other way round, it's trivial to you.
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 the point was that everyone getting killed had new worthy apeal but some of the importances followed an agenda. It isn't that they are non significant now but rather less usefull.
For me i prefere not to hear about any children being murdered. There is very little i can do about it other then feel bad. Life is too short to have the exagerated attention of some child brought to my attention after it's ability to make an impact on my life has gone with her soul. I don't wan't to hear about any of it untill thier killers are being brought to trial and justice is being served
There is an old redneck saying that goes somethign like "kill'em all and let god sort it out"
I other words most americans are likely to overlook some inocent people getting roused around in order to get the ones that needed it. I'm not saying this is what all americans think or that all americans in certain areas think this. I will say it is a growing sediment amoung alot of americans not in the liberal parts of the country. I am having problems counting the times i hear different people at bars say why don't we just nuke the whole area and turn it into a glass parking lot. I guess this would indecate t hey are willing to screw the inocent and good people in our areas of concern.
The new york times running these stories about prison abuses to people we have alread demonized was almost fuel to elect bush even though the elite liberals won't be able to see how.
i'm all for the right thing to do.. can i get a amen brother.
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.
There is an old redneck saying that goes somethign like "kill'em all and let god sort it out"
It's from Medieval times. It was said by Amalric Arnaud, a French bishop while on a crusade against the Albigensis.
Abu Ghraib is one thing. Another thing is what the USA is planning to do in al Fallujah --- to turn into a ghetto, where people have to wear their addresses on their necks. Creepy analogies follow...
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Once again, the only response to a detailed factual posting is an "overrated" (and hence un-metamoderated) moderation. Those of you who are doing this should realize that it is reflecting upon the courage (or more precisely *lack* of courage) of your partisans, especially when dealing with facts. So here it is again (I'll happily burn karma to get out the truth): the Abu Ghraib story was primarily investigated by Seymour Hersh and published in The New Yorker, and The New Yorker reached 1,000,000 circulation for the first time in the same period in which those articles were published. So no, reporting Abu Ghraib is not likely to cause anyone's circulation to go down. Why anyone would object to reporting on Abu Ghraib, when the president himself has wisely condemned what happened there (disproving once and for all the claims that he's stupid), is beyond me. Now, go ahead, mod me down with another "overrated," so you can prove that the only way you can win in the court of public opinion is by trying to prevent people from hearing the other side of the argument.
ahh so the french is responcable for it.. well anyways thanks on the lesson about it.
as for Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, and iraq in general i think a growing nunmber of americans are starting to gain that way of thinking. Not that it is right or wrong but they are starting to lean that way. I think it has to do with all the bad news comming back and the "more liberal" news outlets refusing to let it drop from the publics eye. I seriously doubt it would ever get to the point were we nuke them but "some people" would like to see it happen. i don't think it represent all of america' s thinking either.
It's the responsibility of American government to defina a realistic and civilised policy to be carried out by the US Army in Iraq. They failed it all the way in the past and are failing it now.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
No they didn't fail it. The problem seems they didn't live up to your standards. Sure there was a couple of incodents that we look down on but that is a reflection of those soldiers and not the government them selves. To my knowledge, the government never made anything that i would consider unacceptable a policy for the troops to follow.
The military already has policies in place and it would apear that those policies were not followed in some situations. Thats why there are investigations and criminal proceedings going on right now. When a soldier steps out of line, they are going to be dealt with. If that line is too liberal for you then "tuff". It is within national and international laws and follows the geneva convention. Of course there are a growing number of people that would like to see that gone and we get somewhat brutal with them.
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
It is within national and international laws and follows the geneva convention.
I'm sorry, but it was the opinion of top Pentagon officials that Geneva convention does not apply to certain people. Another example would be Guantanamo Bay prison, where people are being held without trial for indefinite time --- how does it comply with national and international laws?
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
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