OT: How about those Union Tribune Layoffs?

[natty]

what exactly is the cataclysmic change that is taking place?

Is traditional print media dying? Sure, easy to notice. UT has been natural resource waste for a decade plus. This failure can be attributed to many factors.

Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.

The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.

A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.

[Zeitgeist]

The difference could be that the paid “readers” on the news used to be journalists and now they are just readers. As for the print, there could be a similar evolution. There is no aggressive need to break a story that no one else has, or a hard boiled editor to make sure the sources are credible. All the money driven compression of the media has compressed the life out of it and we are left with the dregs. I think there was a wine thread on that kind of wine.

Maybe the next thread should be on what media actually reports honestly. I have read a couple of things in Mother Jones that seemed like they were honest. Here is another question. If you had a story of political corruption at a high level that was threatening to national security, who would you take it to to get the story out before you were wacked? The answer to the question, if you have one is probably the place you should go for news. I think I would contact MoJo, the Rolling Stone and the Drudge report to cover all the bases, then give a copy to the biggest shyster lawyer I know and send a copy to someone trusted.

[Zeitgeist]

The difference could be that the paid “readers” on the news used to be journalists and now they are just readers. As for the print, there could be a similar evolution. There is no aggressive need to break a story that no one else has, or a hard boiled editor to make sure the sources are credible. All the money driven compression of the media has compressed the life out of it and we are left with the dregs. I think there was a wine thread on that kind of wine.

Maybe the next thread should be on what media actually reports honestly. I have read a couple of things in Mother Jones that seemed like they were honest. Here is another question. If you had a story of political corruption at a high level that was threatening to national security, who would you take it to to get the story out before you were wacked? The answer to the question, if you have one is probably the place you should go for news. I think I would contact MoJo, the Rolling Stone and the Drudge report to cover all the bases, then give a copy to the biggest shyster lawyer I know and send a copy to someone trusted.

[Zeitgeist]

The difference could be that the paid “readers” on the news used to be journalists and now they are just readers. As for the print, there could be a similar evolution. There is no aggressive need to break a story that no one else has, or a hard boiled editor to make sure the sources are credible. All the money driven compression of the media has compressed the life out of it and we are left with the dregs. I think there was a wine thread on that kind of wine.

Maybe the next thread should be on what media actually reports honestly. I have read a couple of things in Mother Jones that seemed like they were honest. Here is another question. If you had a story of political corruption at a high level that was threatening to national security, who would you take it to to get the story out before you were wacked? The answer to the question, if you have one is probably the place you should go for news. I think I would contact MoJo, the Rolling Stone and the Drudge report to cover all the bases, then give a copy to the biggest shyster lawyer I know and send a copy to someone trusted.

[Zeitgeist]

The difference could be that the paid “readers” on the news used to be journalists and now they are just readers. As for the print, there could be a similar evolution. There is no aggressive need to break a story that no one else has, or a hard boiled editor to make sure the sources are credible. All the money driven compression of the media has compressed the life out of it and we are left with the dregs. I think there was a wine thread on that kind of wine.

Maybe the next thread should be on what media actually reports honestly. I have read a couple of things in Mother Jones that seemed like they were honest. Here is another question. If you had a story of political corruption at a high level that was threatening to national security, who would you take it to to get the story out before you were wacked? The answer to the question, if you have one is probably the place you should go for news. I think I would contact MoJo, the Rolling Stone and the Drudge report to cover all the bases, then give a copy to the biggest shyster lawyer I know and send a copy to someone trusted.

[Zeitgeist]

The difference could be that the paid “readers” on the news used to be journalists and now they are just readers. As for the print, there could be a similar evolution. There is no aggressive need to break a story that no one else has, or a hard boiled editor to make sure the sources are credible. All the money driven compression of the media has compressed the life out of it and we are left with the dregs. I think there was a wine thread on that kind of wine.

Maybe the next thread should be on what media actually reports honestly. I have read a couple of things in Mother Jones that seemed like they were honest. Here is another question. If you had a story of political corruption at a high level that was threatening to national security, who would you take it to to get the story out before you were wacked? The answer to the question, if you have one is probably the place you should go for news. I think I would contact MoJo, the Rolling Stone and the Drudge report to cover all the bases, then give a copy to the biggest shyster lawyer I know and send a copy to someone trusted.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=natty]

Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.

The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.

A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.[/quote]

So, in your opinion, the average American reader has the capability to fact check the veracity of any given story and can avail themselves of the same resources as an experienced investigative reporter?

Not delving into journalistic ethics here, or proper reportage (i.e. not only sussing out all of the relevant facts, but ascertaining their place in the overall narrative), but simply focusing on fact checking.

The key facts here would be where you stand in terms of education, literacy and numeracy, and how that differs from the “average” American. The fact that you post on Piggington would probably place you in a higher strata, but that somewhat makes my point for me: A free press is there for all citizens, regardless of rank, income or social class, and, yes, that is being lost.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=natty]

Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.

The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.

A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.[/quote]

So, in your opinion, the average American reader has the capability to fact check the veracity of any given story and can avail themselves of the same resources as an experienced investigative reporter?

Not delving into journalistic ethics here, or proper reportage (i.e. not only sussing out all of the relevant facts, but ascertaining their place in the overall narrative), but simply focusing on fact checking.

The key facts here would be where you stand in terms of education, literacy and numeracy, and how that differs from the “average” American. The fact that you post on Piggington would probably place you in a higher strata, but that somewhat makes my point for me: A free press is there for all citizens, regardless of rank, income or social class, and, yes, that is being lost.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=natty]

Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.

The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.

A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.[/quote]

So, in your opinion, the average American reader has the capability to fact check the veracity of any given story and can avail themselves of the same resources as an experienced investigative reporter?

Not delving into journalistic ethics here, or proper reportage (i.e. not only sussing out all of the relevant facts, but ascertaining their place in the overall narrative), but simply focusing on fact checking.

The key facts here would be where you stand in terms of education, literacy and numeracy, and how that differs from the “average” American. The fact that you post on Piggington would probably place you in a higher strata, but that somewhat makes my point for me: A free press is there for all citizens, regardless of rank, income or social class, and, yes, that is being lost.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=natty]

Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.

The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.

A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.[/quote]

So, in your opinion, the average American reader has the capability to fact check the veracity of any given story and can avail themselves of the same resources as an experienced investigative reporter?

Not delving into journalistic ethics here, or proper reportage (i.e. not only sussing out all of the relevant facts, but ascertaining their place in the overall narrative), but simply focusing on fact checking.

The key facts here would be where you stand in terms of education, literacy and numeracy, and how that differs from the “average” American. The fact that you post on Piggington would probably place you in a higher strata, but that somewhat makes my point for me: A free press is there for all citizens, regardless of rank, income or social class, and, yes, that is being lost.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=natty]

Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.

The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.

A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.[/quote]

So, in your opinion, the average American reader has the capability to fact check the veracity of any given story and can avail themselves of the same resources as an experienced investigative reporter?

Not delving into journalistic ethics here, or proper reportage (i.e. not only sussing out all of the relevant facts, but ascertaining their place in the overall narrative), but simply focusing on fact checking.

The key facts here would be where you stand in terms of education, literacy and numeracy, and how that differs from the “average” American. The fact that you post on Piggington would probably place you in a higher strata, but that somewhat makes my point for me: A free press is there for all citizens, regardless of rank, income or social class, and, yes, that is being lost.

[natty]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=natty]

Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.

The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.

A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.[/quote]

So, in your opinion, the average American reader has the capability to fact check the veracity of any given story and can avail themselves of the same resources as an experienced investigative reporter?

Not delving into journalistic ethics here, or proper reportage (i.e. not only sussing out all of the relevant facts, but ascertaining their place in the overall narrative), but simply focusing on fact checking.

The key facts here would be where you stand in terms of education, literacy and numeracy, and how that differs from the “average” American. The fact that you post on Piggington would probably place you in a higher strata, but that somewhat makes my point for me: A free press is there for all citizens, regardless of rank, income or social class, and, yes, that is being lost.[/quote]

i can’t speak for the average american. the phrase rings hollow for me, have no idea what it even means. intelligence in a broad sense is not measurable by number. my own ability to think and learn is beyond personal measure.

free press is not being lost-in fact, it has grown infinitely. an experienced investigative reporter means nothing more to me than an accountant who has been self employed for decades. individual could be no better or worse than fulfilling a void, doing a job, providing a service to those who will pay for it. the ‘experienced investigative reporter’ could be no more talented than a 16 year old who has learned to track and trace bank account information across the globe via internet.

do i expect a reader to fact check every word/article read, no, but said person does have choice and more immediate access to information than ever before. More meaning, the internet is super tool.

it’s easy to wax about days past. the reality is, all generations live and adapt to new technology. arguable of as whole, some generations more, some less. but the outcome is same, some as result of vocation choice and monetary wealth appear more mentally flexible with the times, than the part time employed local school janitor who can recite canterbury tales and works on statistical algorithms as hobby by night.

[natty]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=natty]

Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.

The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.

A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.[/quote]

So, in your opinion, the average American reader has the capability to fact check the veracity of any given story and can avail themselves of the same resources as an experienced investigative reporter?

Not delving into journalistic ethics here, or proper reportage (i.e. not only sussing out all of the relevant facts, but ascertaining their place in the overall narrative), but simply focusing on fact checking.

The key facts here would be where you stand in terms of education, literacy and numeracy, and how that differs from the “average” American. The fact that you post on Piggington would probably place you in a higher strata, but that somewhat makes my point for me: A free press is there for all citizens, regardless of rank, income or social class, and, yes, that is being lost.[/quote]

i can’t speak for the average american. the phrase rings hollow for me, have no idea what it even means. intelligence in a broad sense is not measurable by number. my own ability to think and learn is beyond personal measure.

free press is not being lost-in fact, it has grown infinitely. an experienced investigative reporter means nothing more to me than an accountant who has been self employed for decades. individual could be no better or worse than fulfilling a void, doing a job, providing a service to those who will pay for it. the ‘experienced investigative reporter’ could be no more talented than a 16 year old who has learned to track and trace bank account information across the globe via internet.

do i expect a reader to fact check every word/article read, no, but said person does have choice and more immediate access to information than ever before. More meaning, the internet is super tool.

it’s easy to wax about days past. the reality is, all generations live and adapt to new technology. arguable of as whole, some generations more, some less. but the outcome is same, some as result of vocation choice and monetary wealth appear more mentally flexible with the times, than the part time employed local school janitor who can recite canterbury tales and works on statistical algorithms as hobby by night.

[natty]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=natty]

Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.

The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.

A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.[/quote]

So, in your opinion, the average American reader has the capability to fact check the veracity of any given story and can avail themselves of the same resources as an experienced investigative reporter?

Not delving into journalistic ethics here, or proper reportage (i.e. not only sussing out all of the relevant facts, but ascertaining their place in the overall narrative), but simply focusing on fact checking.

The key facts here would be where you stand in terms of education, literacy and numeracy, and how that differs from the “average” American. The fact that you post on Piggington would probably place you in a higher strata, but that somewhat makes my point for me: A free press is there for all citizens, regardless of rank, income or social class, and, yes, that is being lost.[/quote]

i can’t speak for the average american. the phrase rings hollow for me, have no idea what it even means. intelligence in a broad sense is not measurable by number. my own ability to think and learn is beyond personal measure.

free press is not being lost-in fact, it has grown infinitely. an experienced investigative reporter means nothing more to me than an accountant who has been self employed for decades. individual could be no better or worse than fulfilling a void, doing a job, providing a service to those who will pay for it. the ‘experienced investigative reporter’ could be no more talented than a 16 year old who has learned to track and trace bank account information across the globe via internet.

do i expect a reader to fact check every word/article read, no, but said person does have choice and more immediate access to information than ever before. More meaning, the internet is super tool.

it’s easy to wax about days past. the reality is, all generations live and adapt to new technology. arguable of as whole, some generations more, some less. but the outcome is same, some as result of vocation choice and monetary wealth appear more mentally flexible with the times, than the part time employed local school janitor who can recite canterbury tales and works on statistical algorithms as hobby by night.

[natty]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=natty]

Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.

The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.

A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.[/quote]

So, in your opinion, the average American reader has the capability to fact check the veracity of any given story and can avail themselves of the same resources as an experienced investigative reporter?

Not delving into journalistic ethics here, or proper reportage (i.e. not only sussing out all of the relevant facts, but ascertaining their place in the overall narrative), but simply focusing on fact checking.

The key facts here would be where you stand in terms of education, literacy and numeracy, and how that differs from the “average” American. The fact that you post on Piggington would probably place you in a higher strata, but that somewhat makes my point for me: A free press is there for all citizens, regardless of rank, income or social class, and, yes, that is being lost.[/quote]

i can’t speak for the average american. the phrase rings hollow for me, have no idea what it even means. intelligence in a broad sense is not measurable by number. my own ability to think and learn is beyond personal measure.

free press is not being lost-in fact, it has grown infinitely. an experienced investigative reporter means nothing more to me than an accountant who has been self employed for decades. individual could be no better or worse than fulfilling a void, doing a job, providing a service to those who will pay for it. the ‘experienced investigative reporter’ could be no more talented than a 16 year old who has learned to track and trace bank account information across the globe via internet.

do i expect a reader to fact check every word/article read, no, but said person does have choice and more immediate access to information than ever before. More meaning, the internet is super tool.

it’s easy to wax about days past. the reality is, all generations live and adapt to new technology. arguable of as whole, some generations more, some less. but the outcome is same, some as result of vocation choice and monetary wealth appear more mentally flexible with the times, than the part time employed local school janitor who can recite canterbury tales and works on statistical algorithms as hobby by night.

[Author]

Posts