AJC on Smith,Blackwood and Dykes

gth816f said:
I thought that was because of the Internet.
Click to expand...

The internet gives people an alternative to print newspapers. People are making their choice. If people really valued what the newspaper offered them, I'm not sure they would abandon the paper. I think the old media evolved around the idea of limited competition and never had to address objectivity. If they bury their head in the sand and get overly sensitive about every observation by their readers, THEY WILL FAIL. If they wake up and listen to their customers, they might survive, even if it is as an internet business.
 
jacket67 said:
The internet gives people an alternative to print newspapers. People are making their choice. If people really valued what the newspaper offered them, I'm not sure they would abandon the paper. I think the old media evolved around the idea of limited competition and never had to address objectivity. If they bury their head in the sand and get overly sensitive about every observation by their readers, THEY WILL FAIL. If they wake up and listen to their customers, they might survive, even if it is as an internet business.
Click to expand...

this is certainly not the reason papers are failing. it is because of changes in advertising, changes in how quickly the news changes, and as you mention the alternative media options that address both of those issues that i just mentioned

plus, a newspaper typically has a balanced point of view, trying to view multiple perspectives of the same topic. few readers now want that. they want something that backs up what they already think, thus the success of the insular internet and radio talk hosts

the problem is the stupid customer, not the original format of the papers. americans are just uneducated, unrefined, and dont care about what is really going on.. just look around, Desperate Housewives is the #1 show in America..

crap rags like Natl Enquirer still do pretty well, its just that if a paper prints all AP reports like the AJC does, then WHY buy the paper when everything is already online? other cities, like in San Diego, do better. the local paper still has real writers and not just one writer - AP.
 
BuzzCzar said:
plus, a newspaper typically has a balanced point of view, trying to view multiple perspectives of the same topic. few readers now want that. they want something that backs up what they already think, thus the success of the insular internet and radio talk hosts
.
Click to expand...

+1

Funny story about this -- in the doctor's lounge are 3 TV's. I am usually one of the first doctors there, so a couple of us decided to pull an experiment for a few days. Had the TV's on CNN, ESPN, and MSNBC. Each morning, usually within 1 hour of us changing the channels, all 3 were on FoxNews -- one morning one doctor changed all 3 TV's to FoxNews.
 
BuzzCzar said:
plus, a newspaper typically has a balanced point of view, trying to view multiple perspectives of the same topic. few readers now want that. they want something that backs up what they already think, thus the success of the insular internet and radio talk hosts
Click to expand...

What fantasy world do you live in?
 
Here's Kens response to me.

Thank you for your apology. I accept. It's no big deal. I guess you still feel like the story was slanted. We'll have to agree to disagree.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I feel that I am pretty fair to Tech and I hope I can assure you that it is not my motivation to make Tech look bad whenever I can, as you seem to think. It's simply not the case. If you have examples of what you think are slanted articles, I urge you to share them with me, because if I'm doing it, I really would like to know about it so I can become a more unbiased reporter.

As for our coverage of Georgia, again, you're free to your opinion, but how can you claim to know that "the majority of writers" won't write about Georgia's faults because they're afraid? You're basically saying that you know how people that you've presumably never met act and think. That's a fairly bold statement.

That's tantamount to me, had I covered Tech when you were playing, writing that "John Davis gave up in the game yesterday because he isn't tough enough" without bothering to ask you for comment. I hope you'll agree with me that you wouldn't find that very fair or ethical. I know the guys that cover Georgia. Again, you're entitled to your opinion, and I suppose my opinion of them isn't exactly free of bias, but I wouldn't paint them with the same brush that you do.

Thanks for taking the time to write.

ken
 
BuzzMD said:
+1

Funny story about this -- in the doctor's lounge are 3 TV's. I am usually one of the first doctors there, so a couple of us decided to pull an experiment for a few days. Had the TV's on CNN, ESPN, and MSNBC. Each morning, usually within 1 hour of us changing the channels, all 3 were on FoxNews -- one morning one doctor changed all 3 TV's to FoxNews.
Click to expand...

I notice a similar phenom when I work out in the gym. When I walk in I can tell if the guys were there first (TVs on Fox, CNN & CNBC) or the gals (TVs on the Food channel or Oprah). :)

P.S. As far as I can tell, no one watches MSNBC.
 
gth816f said:
I thought that was because of the Internet.
Click to expand...

I have a choice.

I can buy a newspaper and get newsprint all over my hands and khaki trousers after wading through reams of advertisements and read through small print about the underlying story to a headline.

Or I can get dozens of listings of headlines from across the nation on my homepage and click on the stories that interest me while adjusting the size of the print to one that is best for me...all with no paper to throw away.

I haven't subscribed to any newspaper...even my once beloved WSJ...in a decade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top