Cuchulane: Political leanings aside, I am concerned that a lot of media that's valuable to our cultural health are failing to develop a profitable business model in the internet age.

The problems are disintermediation and competition. I don't need a journalist in a newspaper going to the Whitehouse to report on a president's speech. It's on the Whitehouse.gov website and thousands of publications can grab it. Also, the opening of the internet has meant there's thousands of people doing comment.

Newspapers have to get out of the regurgiation business and into the investigation business. People might hate on the Daily Mail, but they do actually fill their pages with original content. Yes, garbage, but original garbage.

PC LOAD LETTER 2012-02-04 01:45:08 PM

I wish they were actually Liberal; we need a foil in NY to the far-right NY Post that isn't called The Village Voice.


That's one of the weird things about liberals/'progressives': if someone/thing isn't as liberal as they are then it's not liberal.

PC? The NYT is liberal and so is the WaPost, both by their own admission, so don't fool yourself thinking that those papers are 'moderate'; they aren't.

And just to set you straight Obama isn't a 'moderate', either.

The industry would have been more nimble if they hadn't done two things in the mid 1990s - assume the good times would last forever and consolidate the fark out of each other. There was this frenzy of newspaper buying in the beginning of the decade that resulted n most of the news coming out of a handful of people.

Newspapers are also shackled by the fact that they can't diversify. Our local used to be part of a media company that owned three radio stations, five TV stations, and it's own wire service. FCC rules in place mean that that can never happen again, and these decimated media companies can't figure out how to monetize the Internet before the debts they ran up buying each other come due. They're stuck with their business model and they can't do anything about it.

That having been said, locals seem to be doing all right. I can't get local news from CNN.com. But local reporting is expensive, and newspapers are burning. They're way too scared to step off the national stage and regroup, and AP content is cheaper than actually having to produce anything.

Hiding their website/iPhone app behind a paywall was clearly a last-ditch kind of effort. Nobody ever got rich on the internet by restricting access to content.

It would cost less to buy every subscriber a Kindle than to continue printing the Times. The article is three years old, so the tech is even cheaper now.

namatad: PC LOAD LETTER: I wish they were actually Liberal; we need a foil in NY to the far-right NY Post that isn't called The Village Voice.

start your own paper?
I am SURE that there is a market for a far-left, liberal print daily. no wait. I bet there isnt.

I heard the same thing on Air America...oh wait, I didn't.

MrEricSir: Hiding their website/iPhone app behind a paywall was clearly a last-ditch kind of effort. Nobody ever got rich on the internet by restricting access to content.

itunes would disagree with you.

There really is no such thing as a national media outlet that is "liberal". They're all corporate, by definition. They'll take a liberal stand on social issues, maybe, but when the rubber meets the road it's all about rules that make it easier for big companies to push around little ones and protect their revenue streams. The merger of information sources in this country has greatly narrowed the spectrum of opinions in print media.

douchebag/hater: That's one of the weird things about liberals/'progressives': if someone/thing isn't as liberal as they are then it's not liberal.

PC? The NYT is liberal and so is the WaPost, both by their own admission, so don't fool yourself thinking that those papers are 'moderate'; they aren't.

[citation needed]

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: There really is no such thing as a national media outlet that is "liberal". They're all corporate, by definition.

And some corporate people are liberal, some are conservative and that makes a difference.

The merger of information sources in this country has greatly narrowed the spectrum of opinions in print media.

doesn't matter. print is just one tiny source of information.

douchebag/hater: PC LOAD LETTER 2012-02-04 01:45:08 PM

I wish they were actually Liberal; we need a foil in NY to the far-right NY Post that isn't called The Village Voice.


That's one of the weird things about liberals/'progressives': if someone/thing isn't as liberal as they are then it's not liberal.

PC? The NYT is liberal and so is the WaPost, both by their own admission, so don't fool yourself thinking that those papers are 'moderate'; they aren't.

And just to set you straight Obama isn't a 'moderate', either.

He's too much of a republican to be a moderate.

Obama is a corporatist, just like every President since Reagan. Carter was the last one that wasn't owned by the big companies.

gerbilpox: douchebag/hater: That's one of the weird things about liberals/'progressives': if someone/thing isn't as liberal as they are then it's not liberal.

PC? The NYT is liberal and so is the WaPost, both by their own admission, so don't fool yourself thinking that those papers are 'moderate'; they aren't.

[citation needed]

Came out in the NYTimes about 4-5 years ago and the WaPo just a couple of weeks back; both were in columns by the papers' ombudmen.

As always, Google is your friend.blackheart666: douchebag/hater: PC LOAD LETTER 2012-02-04 01:45:08 PM

I wish they were actually Liberal; we need a foil in NY to the far-right NY Post that isn't called The Village Voice.


That's one of the weird things about liberals/'progressives': if someone/thing isn't as liberal as they are then it's not liberal.

PC? The NYT is liberal and so is the WaPost, both by their own admission, so don't fool yourself thinking that those papers are 'moderate'; they aren't.

And just to set you straight Obama isn't a 'moderate', either.

He's too much of a republican to be a moderate.

If you think Obama is conservative in anyway your are either trolling or willfully ignorant; since when is national healthcare a conservative idea? Or stopping pipelines or oil drilling? Or looking to control the internet? Or letting the DoJ let guns enter Mexico so he can then claim that poor US gun laws caused it and then press for stronger gun control? Oh, yeah, he's a Republican, alright - that's sarcasm, too, just so you're clear.

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: There really is no such thing as a national media outlet that is "liberal". They're all corporate, by definition. They'll take a liberal stand on social issues, maybe, but when the rubber meets the road it's all about rules that make it easier for big companies to push around little ones and protect their revenue streams. The merger of information sources in this country has greatly narrowed the spectrum of opinions in print media.

Since when does 'corporation by definition' mean that corporations are 'conservative'?

ABCCBSCNNNBCMSNBCNYTimesLATimeset.al. are all corporations and all liberal.
Is Google conserative?
Is GE conservative?
is Apple conservative?
Are any of the movie studios conservative?
If anything corporations are liberal on social issues - look at how many all unmarried couples to share insurance; look at how many give benefits to gay partners.

You need to stop be more open-minded and drop your biased opinion about what goes on in corporations.

Good, I hope their eminent domain abuses asses burn in hell.

Corporations are neither conservative or liberal, they are corporate. That's the point. All of those organizations you listed are NOT liberal, they are corporate.

that charging for access is really working for them.

douchebag/hater: gerbilpox: douchebag/hater: That's one of the weird things about liberals/'progressives': if someone/thing isn't as liberal as they are then it's not liberal.

PC? The NYT is liberal and so is the WaPost, both by their own admission, so don't fool yourself thinking that those papers are 'moderate'; they aren't.

[citation needed]

Came out in the NYTimes about 4-5 years ago and the WaPo just a couple of weeks back; both were in columns by the papers' ombudmen.

As always, Google is your friend.

You're expecting me to actually go read them -- which is missing the point of the whole story. :-)

When they've got paywalls and registration-walls, they can go fark themselves.

tenpoundsofcheese: itunes would disagree with you.

True, but I was talking about the web. Shoulda been more specific... and of course the hole in that is porn. There's a fairly large "castle" in my neighborhood that was once an armory. It's now owned by Kink.com and they film porn videos there.

One newspaper to rule them all:


/No true liberal newspaper would be like the New York Times
//the evil conservative corporations only print its liberal content to trick you while they twirl their evil mustaches

Rupert Murdoch owns the NYT and lost money? In the immortal word of Kermit. "Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay".

EnviroDude: seventypercent: Here's what I've learned from listening to far-right talk radio:

When print publications that conservatives dislike fail or suffer financial problems, it's because the public has grown weary of their liberal lies and are moving on to greener and more Godly pastures. When print publications that conservatives like fail or suffer financial problems, well, that's just a natural part of the business cycle brought on by technology and the Internet.



Not quite accurate.

You would think the editors would understand the leanings of their readers vs the leanings of the people that promote them. If the goal of a paper were to make money, they would probably report things down the middle, have leftists and neocon opinion writers, and print good and bad news for the party in charge on the front page in lieu of burying stories.

I do not read the NYT. So I am not qualified to say if ^^^ is their model or not. But if you offend 40% of the readership by lying and making stuff up or covering up for a weak democrat president, it is no wonder your subscriptions are down.

/our local rag has cut back so much in the past 4 years that it is pathetic. But I am a good socialist and keep my subscription because I know a lot of people need my $20 a month.

The National Inquirer handled the John Edwards affair with more integrity and honesty than the NYT did. That was really nail in the coffin for that liberal rag. That and the "General Betrayus" ad, that mysteriously vanished after Obama hired him.

That and NYT's strong support of unions....until they fark over the union in Boston. Or the strong stance of calling out excessive executive bonuses for companies losing money...until they give their whiny CEO a few millions for losing readership.

In short, DIAF. You brought this on yourself. Last year I had predicted that Obama would bail them out. I think I was only a year off.

douchebag/hater: gerbilpox: douchebag/hater: That's one of the weird things about liberals/'progressives': if someone/thing isn't as liberal as they are then it's not liberal.

PC? The NYT is liberal and so is the WaPost, both by their own admission, so don't fool yourself thinking that those papers are 'moderate'; they aren't.

[citation needed]

Came out in the NYTimes about 4-5 years ago and the WaPo just a couple of weeks back; both were in columns by the papers' ombudmen.

As always, Google is your friend.blackheart666: douchebag/hater: PC LOAD LETTER 2012-02-04 01:45:08 PM

I wish they were actually Liberal; we need a foil in NY to the far-right NY Post that isn't called The Village Voice.


That's one of the weird things about liberals/'progressives': if someone/thing isn't as liberal as they are then it's not liberal.

PC? The NYT is liberal and so is the WaPost, both by their own admission, so don't fool yourself thinking that those papers are 'moderate'; they aren't.

And just to set you straight Obama isn't a 'moderate', either.

He's too much of a republican to be a moderate.

If you think Obama is conservative in anyway your are either trolling or willfully ignorant; since when is national healthcare a conservative idea? Or stopping pipelines or oil drilling? Or looking to control the internet? Or letting the DoJ let guns enter Mexico so he can then claim that poor US gun laws caused it and then press for stronger gun control? Oh, yeah, he's a Republican, alright - that's sarcasm, too, just so you're clear.

Liberals on Fark have this weird mental disorder. They naturally assume they are they are the perfect center of any ideology. They cannot conceive they are left of most of the country. Therefore, anyone right of them (or anyone Jon Stewart says not to like since most don't understand political theory) is a NeoCon racist.

Nemo's Brother: Liberals on Fark have this weird mental disorder. They naturally assume they are they are the perfect center of any ideology. They cannot conceive they are left of most of the country. Therefore, anyone right of them (or anyone Jon Stewart says not to like since most don't understand political theory) is a NeoCon racist.

And not a truer word was written in this thread.

/Now, be prepared to be called racist, stupid, sexist, and homophobic

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Obama is a corporatist, just like every President since Reagan. Carter was the last one that wasn't owned by the big companies.

Right, he was...and judging by the fiasco in Venezuela, is...pwned by the world's dictators.

The NY Times has been and continues to be one of the most conservative newspapers in the country. The amount of white-washing of American imperialism that they engage in basically make it the American version of Pravda.

It would be nice if they were even slightly liberal.

Nemo's Brother: Liberals on Fark have this weird mental disorder. They naturally assume they are they are the perfect center of any ideology. They cannot conceive they are left of most of the country. Therefore, anyone right of them (or anyone Jon Stewart says not to like since most don't understand political theory) is a NeoCon racist.

Of course they're in the center. All their friends and all the people they listen to think exactly as they do.

/echo chambers are funny on a small level, but get scarier as it effects more and more people and can actually influence policy.

Fark truly is turning into the Fox News of the web news aggregators......

Good luck with that.

Nemo's Brother: They naturally assume they are they are the perfect center of any ideology. They cannot conceive they are left of most of the country.

Although the country is much further to the right than most developed nations so what is considered "left-wing" in this country is really Centrist in the rest of the world.

No matter how much you deny that its not.

douchebag/hater:
If you think Obama is conservative in anyway your are either trolling or willfully ignorant; since when is national healthcare a conservative idea?

Since the 1990's when they first suggested a program exactly similar to Obamacare...although it had a much less sinister name.

Luckily, the GOP has useful idiots like you guys to forget the past that easily.

Mrtraveler01: douchebag/hater:
If you think Obama is conservative in anyway your are either trolling or willfully ignorant; since when is national healthcare a conservative idea?

Since the 1990's when they first suggested a program exactly similar to Obamacare...although it had a much less sinister name.

Luckily, the GOP has useful idiots like you guys to forget the past that easily.

A massive expansion of the public sector in to the private sector completely changing the way things have operated in this country for centuries is "conservative"?


You're trolling aren't you?

PC LOAD LETTER: watson.t.hamster: Mrtraveler01: douchebag/hater:
If you think Obama is conservative in anyway your are either trolling or willfully ignorant; since when is national healthcare a conservative idea?

Since the 1990's when they first suggested a program exactly similar to Obamacare...although it had a much less sinister name.

Luckily, the GOP has useful idiots like you guys to forget the past that easily.

A massive expansion of the public sector in to the private sector completely changing the way things have operated in this country for centuries is "conservative"?


You're trolling aren't you?

WHICH massive expansion? I have seen a few temporary holdings, like GM, which we gave back. Reagan and Bush bought out entire banks during the S&L crisis, they gave them back too. NO ONE CARED.

Get a room.

PC LOAD LETTER: watson.t.hamster: Mrtraveler01: douchebag/hater:
If you think Obama is conservative in anyway your are either trolling or willfully ignorant; since when is national healthcare a conservative idea?

Since the 1990's when they first suggested a program exactly similar to Obamacare...although it had a much less sinister name.

Luckily, the GOP has useful idiots like you guys to forget the past that easily.

A massive expansion of the public sector in to the private sector completely changing the way things have operated in this country for centuries is "conservative"?


You're trolling aren't you?

WHICH massive expansion? I have seen a few temporary holdings, like GM, which we gave back. Reagan and Bush bought out entire banks during the S&L crisis, they gave them back too. NO ONE CARED.

Nice attempt at a redirect. The comment dealt specifically with creating a national healthcare system. The individual claimed national healthcare was a conservative idea.

Surely you can see that it isn't?