OT: How about those Union Tribune Layoffs?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=DWCAP]I use to have a subscription to Newsweek, and actually paid for it. I liked it. The analysis and reporting was really good, and they told a much deeper story than the newspaper did.

Then they decided to go another direction and all their pieces were opinion pieces. [/quote]

Newsweek is now on the selling block, too. Newsweek’s editor, Jon Meacham, is a frequent guest on Bill Maher’s “Real Time” and can best be described as a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. Not putting Newsweek down, but it has become progressively more left-leaning over the years, while trying to represent otherwise.

I subscribe to the Economist. Its definitely right-leaning, but makes no bones about it and doesn’t try to pretend otherwise.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=eavesdropper]

Yeah, I left that out, but was including them in my analysis (did so in an earlier post). I certainly won’t spend the money their publishers want at the newstand. Most times, the content is mostly bullshit, and often it is available on the Web.
[/quote]

Eavesdropper: Speaking of available on the web AND a good piece of journalism:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

This is Tim Dickinson’s Rolling Stone article on Obama and the Gulf spill. RS is usually center-left and generally “friendly” towards the Obama White House. In this case, not so much. Good, well-researched article and one that doesn’t play fast and loose with the facts, nor does it present as an “opinion” piece (a convenient mechanism that many newspapers and periodicals use to try and hide the slant).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=eavesdropper]

Yeah, I left that out, but was including them in my analysis (did so in an earlier post). I certainly won’t spend the money their publishers want at the newstand. Most times, the content is mostly bullshit, and often it is available on the Web.
[/quote]

Eavesdropper: Speaking of available on the web AND a good piece of journalism:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

This is Tim Dickinson’s Rolling Stone article on Obama and the Gulf spill. RS is usually center-left and generally “friendly” towards the Obama White House. In this case, not so much. Good, well-researched article and one that doesn’t play fast and loose with the facts, nor does it present as an “opinion” piece (a convenient mechanism that many newspapers and periodicals use to try and hide the slant).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=eavesdropper]

Yeah, I left that out, but was including them in my analysis (did so in an earlier post). I certainly won’t spend the money their publishers want at the newstand. Most times, the content is mostly bullshit, and often it is available on the Web.
[/quote]

Eavesdropper: Speaking of available on the web AND a good piece of journalism:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

This is Tim Dickinson’s Rolling Stone article on Obama and the Gulf spill. RS is usually center-left and generally “friendly” towards the Obama White House. In this case, not so much. Good, well-researched article and one that doesn’t play fast and loose with the facts, nor does it present as an “opinion” piece (a convenient mechanism that many newspapers and periodicals use to try and hide the slant).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=eavesdropper]

Yeah, I left that out, but was including them in my analysis (did so in an earlier post). I certainly won’t spend the money their publishers want at the newstand. Most times, the content is mostly bullshit, and often it is available on the Web.
[/quote]

Eavesdropper: Speaking of available on the web AND a good piece of journalism:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

This is Tim Dickinson’s Rolling Stone article on Obama and the Gulf spill. RS is usually center-left and generally “friendly” towards the Obama White House. In this case, not so much. Good, well-researched article and one that doesn’t play fast and loose with the facts, nor does it present as an “opinion” piece (a convenient mechanism that many newspapers and periodicals use to try and hide the slant).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=eavesdropper]

Yeah, I left that out, but was including them in my analysis (did so in an earlier post). I certainly won’t spend the money their publishers want at the newstand. Most times, the content is mostly bullshit, and often it is available on the Web.
[/quote]

Eavesdropper: Speaking of available on the web AND a good piece of journalism:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

This is Tim Dickinson’s Rolling Stone article on Obama and the Gulf spill. RS is usually center-left and generally “friendly” towards the Obama White House. In this case, not so much. Good, well-researched article and one that doesn’t play fast and loose with the facts, nor does it present as an “opinion” piece (a convenient mechanism that many newspapers and periodicals use to try and hide the slant).

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Eavesdropper: Speaking of available on the web AND a good piece of journalism:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

This is Tim Dickinson’s Rolling Stone article on Obama and the Gulf spill. RS is usually center-left and generally “friendly” towards the Obama White House. In this case, not so much. Good, well-researched article and one that doesn’t play fast and loose with the facts, nor does it present as an “opinion” piece (a convenient mechanism that many newspapers and periodicals use to try and hide the slant).[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. I get so hungry for writing that actually qualifies as journalism that I really don’t give a rat’s ass if it casts a politician, government official, or any other individual about whom I may have a favorable opinion, in an unfavorable light. I want my government leaders to be held up to the light in regard to their job performances. I don’t want them to have false charges lodged or questionable aspersions cast against them, nor do I want “whitewash” reporting that sounds like it came from a PR office. I just want unbiased, factual, unemotional reporting of what these people do on a daily basis.

I, too, have noticed the growing absence of reporters on the pages of newspapers and magazines, replaced by an increasing number of “opinion writers” or “commentators”. If I gave a damn about some idiot’s opinion, I’d still be paying visits to my family on holidays. Worse yet is the regular appearance of reporters from some of the newspapers on shows such as Keith Olbermann’s or Rachel Maddow’s in a faux-interview setting. Whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant: when they appear on shows with self-admitted political bias, day after day, and spout out “responses” that align 100% with the opinions of the host, how can I possibly trust what they write in a news story, on ANY topic?

You’re right: a major cataclysmic change is taking place in the news industry and in journalism, and I’m not sure that there will be a Fourth Estate remaining when the dust settles.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Eavesdropper: Speaking of available on the web AND a good piece of journalism:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

This is Tim Dickinson’s Rolling Stone article on Obama and the Gulf spill. RS is usually center-left and generally “friendly” towards the Obama White House. In this case, not so much. Good, well-researched article and one that doesn’t play fast and loose with the facts, nor does it present as an “opinion” piece (a convenient mechanism that many newspapers and periodicals use to try and hide the slant).[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. I get so hungry for writing that actually qualifies as journalism that I really don’t give a rat’s ass if it casts a politician, government official, or any other individual about whom I may have a favorable opinion, in an unfavorable light. I want my government leaders to be held up to the light in regard to their job performances. I don’t want them to have false charges lodged or questionable aspersions cast against them, nor do I want “whitewash” reporting that sounds like it came from a PR office. I just want unbiased, factual, unemotional reporting of what these people do on a daily basis.

I, too, have noticed the growing absence of reporters on the pages of newspapers and magazines, replaced by an increasing number of “opinion writers” or “commentators”. If I gave a damn about some idiot’s opinion, I’d still be paying visits to my family on holidays. Worse yet is the regular appearance of reporters from some of the newspapers on shows such as Keith Olbermann’s or Rachel Maddow’s in a faux-interview setting. Whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant: when they appear on shows with self-admitted political bias, day after day, and spout out “responses” that align 100% with the opinions of the host, how can I possibly trust what they write in a news story, on ANY topic?

You’re right: a major cataclysmic change is taking place in the news industry and in journalism, and I’m not sure that there will be a Fourth Estate remaining when the dust settles.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Eavesdropper: Speaking of available on the web AND a good piece of journalism:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

This is Tim Dickinson’s Rolling Stone article on Obama and the Gulf spill. RS is usually center-left and generally “friendly” towards the Obama White House. In this case, not so much. Good, well-researched article and one that doesn’t play fast and loose with the facts, nor does it present as an “opinion” piece (a convenient mechanism that many newspapers and periodicals use to try and hide the slant).[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. I get so hungry for writing that actually qualifies as journalism that I really don’t give a rat’s ass if it casts a politician, government official, or any other individual about whom I may have a favorable opinion, in an unfavorable light. I want my government leaders to be held up to the light in regard to their job performances. I don’t want them to have false charges lodged or questionable aspersions cast against them, nor do I want “whitewash” reporting that sounds like it came from a PR office. I just want unbiased, factual, unemotional reporting of what these people do on a daily basis.

I, too, have noticed the growing absence of reporters on the pages of newspapers and magazines, replaced by an increasing number of “opinion writers” or “commentators”. If I gave a damn about some idiot’s opinion, I’d still be paying visits to my family on holidays. Worse yet is the regular appearance of reporters from some of the newspapers on shows such as Keith Olbermann’s or Rachel Maddow’s in a faux-interview setting. Whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant: when they appear on shows with self-admitted political bias, day after day, and spout out “responses” that align 100% with the opinions of the host, how can I possibly trust what they write in a news story, on ANY topic?

You’re right: a major cataclysmic change is taking place in the news industry and in journalism, and I’m not sure that there will be a Fourth Estate remaining when the dust settles.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Eavesdropper: Speaking of available on the web AND a good piece of journalism:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

This is Tim Dickinson’s Rolling Stone article on Obama and the Gulf spill. RS is usually center-left and generally “friendly” towards the Obama White House. In this case, not so much. Good, well-researched article and one that doesn’t play fast and loose with the facts, nor does it present as an “opinion” piece (a convenient mechanism that many newspapers and periodicals use to try and hide the slant).[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. I get so hungry for writing that actually qualifies as journalism that I really don’t give a rat’s ass if it casts a politician, government official, or any other individual about whom I may have a favorable opinion, in an unfavorable light. I want my government leaders to be held up to the light in regard to their job performances. I don’t want them to have false charges lodged or questionable aspersions cast against them, nor do I want “whitewash” reporting that sounds like it came from a PR office. I just want unbiased, factual, unemotional reporting of what these people do on a daily basis.

I, too, have noticed the growing absence of reporters on the pages of newspapers and magazines, replaced by an increasing number of “opinion writers” or “commentators”. If I gave a damn about some idiot’s opinion, I’d still be paying visits to my family on holidays. Worse yet is the regular appearance of reporters from some of the newspapers on shows such as Keith Olbermann’s or Rachel Maddow’s in a faux-interview setting. Whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant: when they appear on shows with self-admitted political bias, day after day, and spout out “responses” that align 100% with the opinions of the host, how can I possibly trust what they write in a news story, on ANY topic?

You’re right: a major cataclysmic change is taking place in the news industry and in journalism, and I’m not sure that there will be a Fourth Estate remaining when the dust settles.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Eavesdropper: Speaking of available on the web AND a good piece of journalism:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

This is Tim Dickinson’s Rolling Stone article on Obama and the Gulf spill. RS is usually center-left and generally “friendly” towards the Obama White House. In this case, not so much. Good, well-researched article and one that doesn’t play fast and loose with the facts, nor does it present as an “opinion” piece (a convenient mechanism that many newspapers and periodicals use to try and hide the slant).[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. I get so hungry for writing that actually qualifies as journalism that I really don’t give a rat’s ass if it casts a politician, government official, or any other individual about whom I may have a favorable opinion, in an unfavorable light. I want my government leaders to be held up to the light in regard to their job performances. I don’t want them to have false charges lodged or questionable aspersions cast against them, nor do I want “whitewash” reporting that sounds like it came from a PR office. I just want unbiased, factual, unemotional reporting of what these people do on a daily basis.

I, too, have noticed the growing absence of reporters on the pages of newspapers and magazines, replaced by an increasing number of “opinion writers” or “commentators”. If I gave a damn about some idiot’s opinion, I’d still be paying visits to my family on holidays. Worse yet is the regular appearance of reporters from some of the newspapers on shows such as Keith Olbermann’s or Rachel Maddow’s in a faux-interview setting. Whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant: when they appear on shows with self-admitted political bias, day after day, and spout out “responses” that align 100% with the opinions of the host, how can I possibly trust what they write in a news story, on ANY topic?

You’re right: a major cataclysmic change is taking place in the news industry and in journalism, and I’m not sure that there will be a Fourth Estate remaining when the dust settles.

[Zeitgeist]

Great insights as always from eaves, Allan, flu, Arraya, et al. I have also noticed the news is undergoing a complete dumbing down. There are precious few left with any journalism background and are now strictly somewhat pretty faces. Some of the folks on the local news do not know how to dress either (they don’t or I don’t). Their clothing looks more like what you would see at a bar, than on prime time. I have definitely seen them getting rid of the higher paid old timers like LeBeau and Levine recently. Local television news is hardly recognizable any more. I know it is money driven because some of the newly graduated will work for almost nothing for the chance to be on television. I used to be an avid reader of Time through the 80’s, but it grew thinner and weaker and I stopped subscribing. I thought it was starting to read more like People and less like the Time of old when the Man (or machine) of the year actually meant something. Thank God for the Internet. God help us if the government takes over and starts taxing it. Could there be a pirate Internet?

[Zeitgeist]

Great insights as always from eaves, Allan, flu, Arraya, et al. I have also noticed the news is undergoing a complete dumbing down. There are precious few left with any journalism background and are now strictly somewhat pretty faces. Some of the folks on the local news do not know how to dress either (they don’t or I don’t). Their clothing looks more like what you would see at a bar, than on prime time. I have definitely seen them getting rid of the higher paid old timers like LeBeau and Levine recently. Local television news is hardly recognizable any more. I know it is money driven because some of the newly graduated will work for almost nothing for the chance to be on television. I used to be an avid reader of Time through the 80’s, but it grew thinner and weaker and I stopped subscribing. I thought it was starting to read more like People and less like the Time of old when the Man (or machine) of the year actually meant something. Thank God for the Internet. God help us if the government takes over and starts taxing it. Could there be a pirate Internet?

[Zeitgeist]

Great insights as always from eaves, Allan, flu, Arraya, et al. I have also noticed the news is undergoing a complete dumbing down. There are precious few left with any journalism background and are now strictly somewhat pretty faces. Some of the folks on the local news do not know how to dress either (they don’t or I don’t). Their clothing looks more like what you would see at a bar, than on prime time. I have definitely seen them getting rid of the higher paid old timers like LeBeau and Levine recently. Local television news is hardly recognizable any more. I know it is money driven because some of the newly graduated will work for almost nothing for the chance to be on television. I used to be an avid reader of Time through the 80’s, but it grew thinner and weaker and I stopped subscribing. I thought it was starting to read more like People and less like the Time of old when the Man (or machine) of the year actually meant something. Thank God for the Internet. God help us if the government takes over and starts taxing it. Could there be a pirate Internet?

[Zeitgeist]

Great insights as always from eaves, Allan, flu, Arraya, et al. I have also noticed the news is undergoing a complete dumbing down. There are precious few left with any journalism background and are now strictly somewhat pretty faces. Some of the folks on the local news do not know how to dress either (they don’t or I don’t). Their clothing looks more like what you would see at a bar, than on prime time. I have definitely seen them getting rid of the higher paid old timers like LeBeau and Levine recently. Local television news is hardly recognizable any more. I know it is money driven because some of the newly graduated will work for almost nothing for the chance to be on television. I used to be an avid reader of Time through the 80’s, but it grew thinner and weaker and I stopped subscribing. I thought it was starting to read more like People and less like the Time of old when the Man (or machine) of the year actually meant something. Thank God for the Internet. God help us if the government takes over and starts taxing it. Could there be a pirate Internet?

[Author]

Posts