The American Spectator

Mike Landry| 11.7.08 @ 6:36AM

I agree regarding the demise of the newspaper. I rarely read a paper any more, except for the Wall Street Journal and even that is beginning to drift, including its editorial page.
What we need, however, is a new business model for online publications. We need to be able to field reporters to go to city council meetings, sessions of the legislature, and just hang out with potential news sources. Then we are out where the news is being made, following the reporting tradition that the mainstream media destroyed. (New name for the MSM: the Pravda media).
That, however, takes money. Perhaps the answer is online subscription services to local and national e-publications which have reportorial depth and credibility.

Dave Morse| 11.7.08 @ 6:58AM

I had to come to Iraq to see a decent paper. The 'Stars and Stripes' provides a whole lot of hard news, good coverage, a small but well-balanced opinion section, lots of good comics and great sports coverage. Too bad my home town 'Waterloo Courier' or home state 'Des Moines Register' can't measure up. (Apologies to two of my favorite columnists in the Courier - Scott Cawelti and Dennis Clayson)

alex in DC| 11.7.08 @ 8:42AM

Indeed, the time is now to start ignoring the mainstream media as they have shown themselves inept in their vetting of THEIR candidate, 'that one'. The fact that conservatives will not engage with liberal rags is enough of a buzz for people to ask the next logical question: We'll who will you talk to? Certainly never Katie Couric again, and probably not any of the networks or CNNMSNBCNYTIMESWASHPOST. But more likely the Washington Times, FOX, or even perhaps Drudge.

Anthony| 11.7.08 @ 9:07AM

Your message is a bit off. It's not throw the newspapers in the garbage, that implies you actually paid for that crap, it's don't buy them, period. Read the WSJ, Washington Times, NY Post and others on line. Hasten the MSM's demise by not supporting them.

David Adams| 11.7.08 @ 9:27AM

Newspapers should have a warning label affixed to the front page that says; "Caution, the content of this paper may be injurious to your sense of balance and your need for accurate information."

lizzie| 11.7.08 @ 9:46AM

sarah should have been quickly rolled out to
local stations in red states. local stations are not
as biased and they are thrilled to get important
guests. rick davis seems clueless in managing
a campaign. sarah was a good grassroots candidate and it was davis and schmidt who
screwed up, not sarah.

John M| 11.7.08 @ 10:04AM

The traditional liberal MSM need to be punished for what they have done during this election. Stop reading their newpapers, stop watching their television networks or buying the products of companies that own these networks, stop going to Hollywood movies or buying their DVD's, particularly ones that have any of the brainless "celebrities" that insisted on foisting their left wing drivel on us. Lastly, I would hope that our politicians would ignore the specious appeals of making themselves "available to the press" when the questions are obviously so slanted and agenda-driven.

pjean| 11.7.08 @ 11:06AM

We are fortunate to have our news sources on the web. Think of Communist Russia and China long before the computer age. They must have felt so powerless to be oppressed by a government run news agency and few, if any, voices of resistance.

This is not a time to whine. It is a time of enormous opportunity. We have a fire in our belly and we must capitalize on that energy. We must retool and gather the troops.

Tom| 11.7.08 @ 11:51AM

The media are as liberal as the conservative corporations that own them. Ms. Willey's Editorial Board at the Dallas Morning News endorsed Sen. McCain for president, continuing a conservative tradition at the paper that's been going since 1885.
Technology -- and the wide variety of electronic choices for news -- has made newspapers obsolete. They're only popular when history is made -- as seen by the fact that the DMN had extra printings of its Nov. 5 edition to meet demand.

SRR| 11.7.08 @ 12:07PM

Hear, hear. As a veteran of big-market media for almost 20 years, I can bear witness to the shameless cheerleading among the supposed elites. And don't you dare profess a word's admiration for this country or a GOP candidates ... you'll be committing career suicide. You have to yuck it up with those who are saying "I can finally be proud of my country again, not embarrassed." It's hard to stomach, believe me. There's been lots of talk at Poynter.org (the St. Pete, Fla., journalism organization) about how objective the media can be (this is, of course, has been a perennial ethical question among journalists for decades). One or two journos advocate a rather hardline objectivity to the point where they won't even vote, which is a tad extreme but far more admirable than the "You actually LIKE your country? Moron!" crowd. You want to know how brainwashed these people are? One night I was running the news desk, and I was going over photos with the editor of a metro/local cover page. The best was a photo of a young boy in the park, nothing spectacular. The page editor that night scoffed, "Another white male face" or something to that effect. The boy, indeed, was a white, blond boy. The cover page editor? A white, blonde female. The kid in the photo could have been her son (god forbid she have a boy). Oh, and then there was the night a gunman entered NYC city hall. One minority editor remarked, "I hope it's an all-American kind of guy." You can't even be moderate. I can't tell you how many nights I've felt as though I'm working in an Obama campaign headquarters. Yes, it's that bad. I can count on a dose of anti-GOP mockery at the beginning of the day, during the day, end of the day ... ceaseless.

Captain America| 11.7.08 @ 12:11PM

In addition to newspapers, turn off the DNC/MSNBC (if anyone is watching them still), CNN, and the pap from the alphabet channels.

While Gov. Palin has been lampooned and insulted to no end, Joe the Plumber continues to be bullied when interviewed on television. CNN's Rick Sanchez is a complete disgrace. Hiding behind his viewers questions to cast dispersions on Joe for his asking Obama a question.

The pattern is obvious. Gov. Palin, Joe the Plumber, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the media launches personal attacks and insults in order to get them to shut up and retreat.

Red Neck| 11.7.08 @ 12:21PM

The GOP now has a reason to stop being the Stupid Party (with respect to campaign strategy).

Arpaio is, admittedly, a clown. He's garnered Phoenix a lot of legal judgments against it by mixing show biz with jail administration. But his audacity in challenging the media will hopefully be an inspiration to sober GOP candidates across the country.

National TV commercials are expensive, though, and there has to be planning. McCain's budget was not big enough to make the 30 minute splashes that Obama got. It's not too soon to start building the war chests for 2010 and beyond.

Marcus| 11.7.08 @ 12:35PM

The newspapers and televison are no sources of the truth. Why continue to support them? I agree with the posters above: Two years now with NO TV (DirecTV cancelled); no newspapers; no purchase of the Leftoid Hollywood celebrities' offerings. Get it all on the Internet!

Tom Paine| 11.7.08 @ 12:43PM

Re: "The Newspaper Belongs in the Trash"

Rachel,

You really should recycle. Think of the trees.

Also. Newspapers have been a joy in my life. Local papers, national papers. I love newspapers.

I also think that the Palin-inspired newspaper haters in your midst are dragging you down.

Anti-intellectualism will ruin the Republican party. The world is too complex to put dummies who don't read widely and in a variety of media in charge of it.

Marc Jeric| 11.7.08 @ 12:45PM

I escaped from a communist country (Yugoslavia) in 1957, lived in France 5 years waiting for a US immigrant visa; arrived here in 1962. I became a citizen in 1967 and gradually got to know politics here. Since 1969 I renamed The New York Times as "The NY Pravda", and The Los Angeles Times as "The LA Izvyestiya". Why? There was little difference in their political coverage from what we were fed under communist dictatorship. I am happy to see, after 40 years of waiting, the awakening by general public of the true nature of our MSM.

Tom Paine| 11.7.08 @ 1:03PM

Unlike Fox News (or MSNBC), newspapers publish their biases.

That is, the publisher of the New York Times hires people to write a daily editorial proclaiming the paper's specific take on issues.

This allows the reader to correct for any possible distortions.

The Times, by the way, hires a separate editor whose JOB it is to criticize the paper's decisions (the public editor).

If you are capable of critical thinking and reading you can inform yourself about the world by reading liberal-leaning papers like the Times, conservative-leaning papers like the Journal, and other print sources.

Journalists are an important part of the national debate. Remember that even among so-called liberal journalists there is fierce competition. It is in the interest of the press to scoop the broadcast media, just as it is in the interest of the Times to scoop the Post. That competition keeps these sources a great deal more honest than you people seem to understand.

But again, you need critical reading skills and an actual interest in being exposed to information that may challenge your ideological investments.

Doctor Right| 11.7.08 @ 1:23PM

To: Captain America

Re: Good advice

"In addition to newspapers, turn off the DNC/MSNBC (if anyone is watching them still), CNN, and the pap from the alphabet channels."

To this good advice, I'd like to add that we conservatives need to stop patronizing Hollywood. Stop going to the cinema, and stop buying DVDs .

Wanna' change the Liberal-slant of Hollywood? Hit them where it hurts - in their wallets!

J. Milton| 11.7.08 @ 2:15PM

Kevin Willey has done the same thing at the Dallas Morning News. The DMN has done nothing both on the top fold of the front page and in the editorial section but trash Bush and McCain/Palin in particular, and traditional Republicans as well. They also endorse the Democrat party line and call themselves a conservative "progressive" newspaper. Sure. They also endorsed McCain at the last moment I guess to keep long time subscribers like me on board because the "youth" movement doesn't bother actually reading anything. Glad to see the printed MSM dying a slow death.

Diamon| 11.7.08 @ 2:28PM

During the early years of this decade I loved it when the newspaper subscription solicitation operations knocked on my door and when I opened it appeared a poor slob who just wanted to make a buck. A few actually stayed and listened to my reasons, namely the newspaper's choice of endorsements and the left-wing bias. I asked them if they read the editorials and of they said no. Some actually rolled their eyes! I don't think they knew what editorial meant.

The next source of my amusement was the telephone calls. Oh how I loved to waste their time by lecturing how their paper was a Democrat Party public relations arm. This had to be painful for them because this sort of selling activity is high volume and you can't waste time chasing a dead lead.

Don't buy them, read them, and better waste their time when they try to peddle their propaganda. Do one better and don't patronize their advertisers. Better than that you can write to their advertisers and tell them you will not buy their product until they cease to do business with the newspaper.

And lastly, not buying this trash will lessen your carbon foot print!

bucky| 11.7.08 @ 2:35PM

I started taking all news with a grain of salt when I noticed that events that I had been involved in bore no resemblence to reality when reported in the local paper or TV news. I initially wriote it off as the reporter merely not being fully informed and not necessarily understanding what he or she observed. Since then, I've recognized that it is far more than simple ingnorance. Rather, it is intentional misrepresentation of facts - either by the reporter or the editor - designed to push an agenda.

Tom Paine| 11.7.08 @ 3:00PM

You can't imagine how foolish you sound whining about a "left wing bias" in newspapers.

By and large, it is illusory. You should treasure the diversity of information sources available in this country.

The most anti-American thing I can think of doing is trashing the press.

This country's genius IS this press.

If you know how to read critically, if you are thoughtful, patient, and intelligent, bias means nothing. In fact, it is precisely bias that is the basis of some of the best journalism that gets done.

The ideal of a "fair and balanced" press is puerile and completely misunderstands how good journalism gets made.

Will| 11.7.08 @ 5:01PM

Continue the boycott:

I haven't bought the NY Times for years. Yesterday, I used the parental controls on my TV to block MSNBC.

I don't go to the websites for either of these. Instead, I'll go to The Washington Times or (until it went under itself) the NY Sun.

I keep CNN so I don't live in a conservative bubble, but never will I go back to the NY Times or MSNBC.

(In some ways, it's a shame because before his leg went all tingly for his boyfriend Obama, I though Chris Matthews was interesting for a political junkie. Too bad; no more.)

Sam| 11.7.08 @ 5:07PM

SRR is right. I worked for newspapers too, some owned by Gannett, where they had a program where they encouraged getting more minorities into stories and photos. Up to a point, that's a good thing. But they took it too extremes, to where we were calling minority people for comment on topics they had no knowledge of, and they would essentially ask, "What the heck are you calling me about this for?" They would give editors bonuses if they met their quotas for getting lots of minorities into the paper. It is political correctness run amok.

Becky| 11.7.08 @ 5:18PM

Yep, time to cancel subscriptions. Last year I sent a written press release to the main local paper, talked to the new grad journalist to answer any questions (she said she had to rewrite it in her own voice), and had to contact them when the article was published with the incorrect date and time of the event. It was really disappointing considering the reporter had a bacherlor's degree.

I have found myself becoming more and more critical over time, not just on the reporting, but why some of the questions I may have on a story are never asked or mentioned. Fox News is just as bad as the others sometimes. I think sometimes success breeds sloth.

Tom Paine| 11.7.08 @ 5:48PM

Do any of you have evidence that suggests the news editors are biased at the NY Times?

Any specific instances where bias distorted information?

Sheila| 11.7.08 @ 6:08PM

God, I'm tired of the "anti-intellectualism will kill the GOP" refrain. I will gladly compare my IQ, SAT scores, Ivy League degree(s), scholarships, and general common sense against ANYONE's, and I was going to sit out the presidential race until Sara Palin was picked. As for newpapers, I grew up a liberal reading the Washington Post. In college, the New York Times. Years overseas, the International Herald Tribune. During all this time, I grew up, did a 180 and became a strong conservative. Back in 1994 the Dallas Morning News was a breath of fresh air - a center right paper. Since Keven Ann took over it has become ureadable, and we're down to Sundays and Wednesdays only (coupons and grocery store circulars). The rest goes in the trash where it belongs. All my news comes from the web - my commentary from radio. I even have trouble watching Fox anymore. So to hades with rest of you mushy so-called conservatives!!!!!!!

Tom Paine| 11.7.08 @ 7:43PM

Sheila,

Your defense of your own acumen is well-taken and much to be considered. However, your argument is a little weird.

You write that you spent your formative years reading "liberal" newspapers, and yet you managed to become a (presumably ideologically correct) conservative nonetheless. I presume conservatism wasn't delivered to your primarily via internet during these years.

How, then, did you learn the truth path? Burning bush? Road, Damascus, flashing light?

You conservatives make a big deal about a supposedly overwhelming media conspiracy of leftism, yet the national political discourses have been primarily conservative in nature since 1980. Conservatives don't win every election, but the debates and discussions we have are carried out in terms chosen by conservatives.

You must decide. Either the media is the all-powerful demon of your (rather paranoid) fantasies, or it is ineffectual and ultimately not at all influential, or it is influential but not nearly as leftist as you claim.

I'd like some clearer thinking on this matter. And yes, many of you do sound pretty intellectually lazy to me.

Fedup| 11.7.08 @ 7:50PM

The US media today would make the Bolshevik and Nazi editors, respectively, of Pravda, Izvestia and Die Sturmer proud. The "reporters" who worked for those papers at least had a good excuse to write pr0-govt. lies and propaganda; if they did otherwise, they would be shot or sent to a Siberian Gulag/concentration camp. American "reporters" and media folks are merely propagandists for the left wing of the democratic party; and everybody knows it. They write/broadcast their propaganda and lies of their own free will; absolutely disgusting. They have no excuse.
Republicans though, are stupid. Who the hell decided to put Palin in front of Couric, Gibson, etc., just so they could play trivial pursuit with her. I could devise 100 political questions that Obama could never answer. Also, when the press prints or broadcasts their lies and propaganda, the Republicans always remain silent. This is incredibly stupid of them.
Most voters are clueless about history and economics - which is why vote for smooth talking, charismatic marxists like Obama, re-elect Barney Frank, and that lying, corrupt, disgusting, hate-America firster Murtha.
The democrats and their media sycophants know how to reach voters on an emotional level; propaganda does indeed work very effectively.
The Republicans are incapable of getting their message across because they refuse to play hardball with the lying democrats. It does not help that the Republicans have totally screwed up over the last 8 years; spending like drunken sailors.
We need a new American Revolution; a real one in which the politicians are forcibly removed from office and packed off to Cuba or N.Korea where they will feel at home. Oh yes, the media should be sent off with them.

CharlieBravo| 11.7.08 @ 8:08PM

We will all be celebrating when the NY Times files for bankruptcy. If you ask your doctor and dentist to cancel thier Time and Newsweek subscriptions those publications could be put out of their misery.

Tom Paine| 11.7.08 @ 8:31PM

Sheila, Charlie Brava, et al --

If these publications go out of business, where do you propose to get information?

Blogs are Rush Limbaugh are fine, up to a point. But who will put up the huge money required to pay reporters to travel abroad or do the long patient hard work of investigative journalism.

Or, do you just want to cut yourself off from any information sources?

Willful blindness is a terrible sin and a mark of bad character.

Tom Paine| 11.7.08 @ 8:38PM

I doubt very much you people have taken the time to read the newspapers you denounce.

I defy you to spend a week reading each front page story of the Times every day and make a list of "liberal" biases you've found.

Tom Paine| 11.7.08 @ 8:42PM

I'll even go you one better. Read the front page story on Obama's economic conference today. Find me one sentence that you think is somehow distorted or liberally biased.

It's a challenge. I'd love to debate any of you dealing with an actual text, rather than just listen to you people repeat what you heard on Rush Limbaugh this morning.

snookered| 11.7.08 @ 8:56PM

Better than throwing the newspapers in the trash, attack them for the environmental damage they do. They are always harping on the latest green or tree-hugger story. Well their product is the biggest single source of residential waste in the country. Newsprint requires cutting down trees and delivering the newspaper consumes large amount of petroleum. Creating their product destroys trees that reduce global warming (according the the newspapers) and the tossed papers decay or are burned producing global warming gas. Ask them what their cap and trade fines should be.

silver| 11.7.08 @ 9:23PM

Readers can now go instead to that whiney complaining pompous website the author edits.

John Link| 11.8.08 @ 12:13AM

So: Barack will bail out banks and the auto industry. He will subsidize every "green" technology out there, while (of course) bankrupting coal. So what makes you folks think he won't find a way to finance his friends in the left-wing print media? "The Washington Post has an 86% year-to year quarterly loss? Here's $100 million in rescue money." Pravda-on-the-Potomac, anyone?

Charlie Bravo| 11.8.08 @ 12:54AM

Tom Paine

Investigative Journalism, boy that would be a treat. I am sorry the great story on Sarah Palin's wardrobe
would not qualify as such. This business needs some consolidation only then you might see a return of quality investigative journalism that we saw years ago. They are too many "dead beats" with a political agenda at the editorial boards.

truthie| 11.8.08 @ 2:38AM

Another stupid post by that moron, Silver. Loser.

ruth| 11.8.08 @ 2:43AM

Tom, I sure hope Obama is paying you well. You are all over AmSpecBlog spewing your garbage, and you haven't changed one mind. You obviously don't have a life, so don't lecture us, loser. Listen up! No one cares. Go home, troll.

Aristotle| 11.8.08 @ 2:45AM

Yes, The Washington Times is still reliable, though not as lively as when Wes Pruden was the editor in chief. It looks like a Gannett paper now, though it doesn't read like one.

Tom Paine| 11.8.08 @ 10:53AM

Ruth --

How is it "spewing garbage" to point out the relative merits of a newspaper?

You are rather on edge, are you not?

Tom Paine| 11.8.08 @ 10:56AM

Et al --

I posted a front page story from the NY Times about Obama. It's up there where my noble nom de plume is underlined.

This is a story from the newspaper Ann Coulter said ought to be bombed about a president many of you refer to as a terrorist. If there is a liberal bias, it should be here.

SO I repeat the challenge. Find me specific textual evidence of this bias.

Make an argument. Cite evidence. Explain your reasoning. That's what people do when they have debates.

Anthony| 11.8.08 @ 12:07PM

And the facists on the left wring their hands over talk radio. I submit the corrupt MSM was good for at least 15 pts for Obama. Now that the election has been safely garnered for Obama by the elite media, they ask questions like, gee, we don't really know anything about this guy, do we? Or, what do we know about his associations? Oh, and let's kick a little more dirt on Gov. Palin, just in case she has future ideas. Saul Alinsky has been on the lips of the average conservative for months, now, the best and the brightest in the elite media have suddenly discovered him. Seems to me, talk radio is doing a fine job of educating the public with useful information for an informed electorate, something the media used to do before it became the Democrat Party's propaganda organ, right Chris Matthews? But of course, talk radio exposes subjects the left wishes to keep under wraps. We know the game, and Brokaw, Matthews, and friends aren't fooling anyone, especially when Brokaw dares suggest talk radio is uncontroled and biased. Yes, the facists on the left, and their allies in the MSM want to kill talk radio. The MSM pines for the good ole days of their monopoly. I say, bring it on; let's get this over with now and see who remains standing.

Tom Paine| 11.8.08 @ 12:45PM

Anthony,

I say at least four points in your post regularly made by Rush Limbaugh.

The question becomes, why shouldn't you have some ideas of your own? I think real conservatism is more than a few repeated claims that the media is swaying elections. (If that were the case, how would you explain the political history of this country since 1980?)

In short, you can do better than this.

"Just in case she has future ideas" is a rich but I think ultimately unfair expectation to put on poor Sarah Palin.

Good Lord, folks, is this the best you've got?

Catherine| 11.8.08 @ 5:56PM

I've boycotted Big Media a long time ago. No tv, no newspapers, no magazines. I'm glad to see that many other Americans have joined.

Again, can we have an ignore button so we can skim past the pathetic trolls here?

Richard| 11.8.08 @ 6:00PM

As a former newspaper guy - a top 30 market daily - and a conservative, I would argue that newspapers are NOT going to die, but they are starting a metamorphosis that will leave them looking very different 5-10 years than they do now.

Oh, a few will fold. But there will still be a need for local news and investigative reporting and the other things newspapers have provided.

Newspapers will have much smaller staffs - which is just as well because most were bloated operations. Only the Sunday or weekend editions may be in print; most content will be online, including advertising. And this may also make it easier for new startups to get into the business as well.

As to whether conservative candidates should ignore them - I might not go that far (obviously, I would ignore the NYTimes), but I would make sure to make myself just as available to new media.

Patricia A. Helvenston| 11.9.08 @ 12:07AM

Tom, the MSM (formerly known as the mainstream Media ) now known as the Marxist Socialist Media are going in the tank, not because of the internet, but because they are communist - they espouse communist principles, they have elected a hard core communist, and they advocate a redistribution of wealth that is unknown anywhere in the world except China and the former USSR. I don't read these newspapers any more, but I would frankly prefer to read a newspaper than have to get my news from vision destroying internet sites. I don't read newspapers because they are all communist, but I can find conservative internet sites. It is no technology that is destroying newpapers, it is ideology. If the conservatives in America were smart they would begin by investing in conservative media. I don't think Rupert Murdock is conservative at all, he just recognized an enormously profitable market niche in throwing a tiny amount of red meat to conservatives. The fact is that conservative papers in every small town in America would change the dynamic of elections here profoundly, toward traditionalists who would like to conserve those founding principles that have made America great.

johnnyb| 11.9.08 @ 12:42AM

I truly hope conservative Americans are not so naive to believe everything they read & hear and to take the MSM with a huge grain of salt. I truly hope the propaganda papers such as the NewYork Times, NY Post, and San Francisco Chronicles suffer because of there total lack of honest journalism. What ever happen the whole truth being reported and letting the public decide rather than reporting how they feel we should decide. The MSM is supposed to be for informing the public but now it is a platform for those who abuse it for their own purposes. The Obama Campaign used them masterfully. I can't wait in 2 years when this country is in greater turmoil and the MSM turns on them, and believe they will.

Its just not the papers but MSNBC, CNN, NBC, and let us not forget PBS. They are all guilty of shoddy journalism and false reports. It actually makes my stomach sick when I see people like the liberal elites such as Wolf Blitzer, Kieth Olberman,
Chris Matthers, Katie Couric, Charles Gibbson, and etc.....There are so many of them. When they feel they know what is best for us they lose all respect from me.

Then you have the absolute idiots of the Hollywood crowd. They all try to buy there beliefs which sadly we are only to blame b/c we continue to buy there products by going to movies or toys, and dvd's. About 90% of them truly are a group of selfish, greedy, and godless people. Take away there money and do you honestly think they would be as vocal? I cannot wait till they start paying the extreme high taxes and share there wealth with everyone. I think you might be hearing some winning then :)

I can't wait to they liberals try to pass a "Fairness Doctrine". For all those that are not quite sure what that means it means that anyone reporting would need to spend equal amount of time sharing both opposing views, whether it is a newspaper editorial, TV or cable report, and they'll try to enforce it on conservative talk radio. Sounds so wonderful but it sounds like the first amendment being chipped away. do you actually believe the dishonest liberal MSM would stick to that rule.........YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!

I pray these dishonest liberal elitests get hurt where it hurts the most.....in money pockets. The Truth will set you free!!!!

God Bless America!

Ken Moyes| 11.9.08 @ 1:27AM

For years, the fourth estate has diminished in importance, as other methods of obtaining information have taken hold. Public polls have repeatedly indicated that the voting public believes that a great part of the broadcast and print media are agenda driven and not information driven.

If a political endorsement should come from either broadcast or print media and be valued, it must come from an organization at the pinnacle of general esteem. An endorsement only carries the weight of the respect the endorser is generally given in a direct relationship of high public esteem and strong endorsement.

An endorsement from an organization, that has little esteem among the populace - circulation numbers are a good indicator of the level of esteem - carries little or negative weight. An example might be the general commonly heard derisive nickname for the Arizona Daily Star, as it is routinely called the Red Star by citizens of Tucson - meaning left leaning like Pravda - only tells one side of the issue.

The New York Times is routinely named by pundits as a source or pundits extol the editorials of the Times. During the Republican primary a broadcast media type claimed that since Rudy Giuliani did not get the endorsement of the Times, his home town newspaper, he must not be viable. Well, the New York Times is third in circulation in Greater New York, behind the New York Daily News and the New York Post - not very esteemed is it. Circulation may be misleading as a judge of how much esteem a paper has. In those circulation numbers are people buying the paper for the sports, style section, and ads. These elements are not a real barn burner for political esteem. A month or so, after endorsing John McCain in the primary the Times ran a hit piece on him about some affair with a lobbyist. The piece had no weight, no basis, no facts, and was even weak on innuendo. So much for the public's esteem of the Times.

Another example of little or no esteem is the Gwen Ifill debacle at PBS. She was chosen to moderate the Vice-presidential debate. Is she balanced? She would like you to think so. PBS would like you to think so. She wrote a book called: The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. The product description taken from the Amazon.Com web site states: "In the breakthrough, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power...".

On the surface one could say that so, she wrote a book on Obama. What this means is that when the book is released on inauguration day, if Obama has won, she will make lots and lots of money. She has a vested financial interest in his victory. Yet, she did not disclose this book or recuse herself from moderating a debate that could have influenced the election. What does this do to the esteem of PBS and Gwen Ifill?

Some newspaper and broadcast media are legends in their own collective minds, and have not yet figured out that few who count (voters) are paying attention to them. A newspaper has to earn the esteem with aggressive, balanced, and accurate reporting. A paper that does not do everything it can to inform the public accurately and with balance is not earning esteem. The same holds for broadcast media.

A candidate must earn esteem to be elected - that is the ultimate endorsement. In today's media environment, candidates make a good decision in seeking endorsements only from organizations, media or not, that carry substantial public esteem, and in spending little effort seeking endorsements from organizations that carry little public esteem.

As far as being a meaningful player in the political process going forward, stick a fork in the media, because they are done!

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 1:54AM

You people keep referring to these "other means" of getting information -- means, I take it, other than those run by trained, competent, professional journalists.

Your contempt for journalists and journalism is extremely ignorant -- just another way in which you desperately try to protect your bubble from the menace of any pin-prick of information counter to the ideology.

It's so self-defeating after a while, however. Your faith based world is crumbling, and the low information voter has far less power this year than he or she had in 04, and next time around it will be even less.

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 1:56AM

Just for the record, a "troll" is someone who pretends to be on your side, but is not.

I never pretend to be a proud ignoramus, nor do I hope to convince you that I'm shallow, paranoid, bigoted, hateful, stupid, or cynical.

Not so fast...| 11.9.08 @ 2:37AM

Obviously, not every member of the media lives up to the extremely high ethical standards the public placed on the media 100 percent of the time. And I agree that television news has degraded into infotainment programs in which reporters can be indiscernable from pundits (and this is true on the left and the right). But Democracy needs "the media." And we need institutions full of trained specialists who can gather information and report it to us. And the "MSM" generally does a good job of that.

And I think it's important to note that the mainstream media is not monolithic. In fact, it's cannibalistic. You know about many of these examples of "bias" from O'Reilly, and we know about Fox News' "conservative slant" from other media sources. As long as you're diverse in your sources of information, you can put together an intelligent picture.

That doesn't happen if you throw away your newspaper.

Some may say that we dont' need the MSM because of bloggers. But bloggers would have nothing without newspaper Web sites to link to. Newspapers do all the heavy lifting for them and television news.

More often, I think we perceive bias where there is only aspects of the truth that we don't like.

frank burns| 11.9.08 @ 12:33PM

This was a huge victory for the MSM, reasserting their political dominance over a lazy american public - after the election we get comments by Brokaw claiming "we really don't know much about Obama", Evan Thomas describing Obama's "kind of creepy cult of personality" etc - so they knew but wouldn't say, or blatantly ignored damaging stories about their candidate of choice.

Rush recently aired a montage of reporters all describing Rahm Emmanuel has having "sharp elbows"; you mean they ALL came up with that term individually on the SAME day, like they did with "gravitas" -? Obviously they all get their talking points from the same source, and make no attempt to revise it! But they can sure manage to dig up a lot about Joe Plumber in 24 hours or less.

Further: it's hard to convince the public there are two distinct parties when a Republican admin throws BILLIONS in bailouts to billionaire bankers who helped bring the crisis about - funny how there's always PLENTY of cash to keep their big buddies afloat in private jets and luxury spas - but their victims, the average joe who can't pay his hyperinflated mortage, well that's his fault, right? The banks have no incentive to stop foreclosures because they know they'll get it all back and more from the govt - while the poor guy they shut down may get a crumb or two in the form of food stamps.

They will undoubtedly bail out GM as well, using "our" money to support them; and we're well on our way to govt ownership of "private" industry - full blown Socialism.

Chicagoan4Now| 11.9.08 @ 1:05PM

Tom Paine - lay your credentials on the table and we can judge whether you're another faux-intellectual. (Mine are: Phi Beta Kappa, master's in math and 20 years of line, staff and executive experience with a top Fortune company)

The NY Times is so error-riddled there's now a site dedicated to exposing them. http://www.timeswatch.org/

Don't forget the Times' Walter Duranty, who whitewashed Stalin's gulags and forced starvation of Ukranians - total nearly 100 million dead. Or the article purportedly showing a Palestinian boy cowering beside his father under Israeli gunfire. The Times has yet to retract or apologize, though later investigation exposed its falsity. The "story" was responsible for riots and many deaths.

I personally find the highest and best use of the Sunday Chicago Tribune (which as of today I will no longer purchase) in my rabbit litter box. The Wall Street Journal, though somewhat leftist on its news pages, at least covers free market economics on its editorial pages. Other good sources of responsible data and analysis include the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation. (Resist the temptation to say "right wing" because those of us in Chicago can spot Saul Alinsky Marxist name-calling techniques. Refute the data with data if you disagree)

frank burns| 11.9.08 @ 1:34PM

chicagoan4now - right on the money. NY Times, Newsweek et al are unreliable sources (any Korans flushed down toilets lately?) How many more Jayson Blairs are still out there we don't know of yet?

The "errors" are of two general types: commission (knowingly falsified or assumed true by dubious sources); or by omission (selective amnesia on certain facts).

Then there is the whole issue of falsified and photoshopped pictures used as "data" or "verification" when they are knowingly false or editors don't bother to check because it fits their agenda. We seem to get a lot of those regarding Israel (recall the infamous Reuters photo of an Israeli jet firing multiple rockets into a Palestinian town? Turned out to be a single jet firing a flare, not a missile; or shots of certain "victims" appearing in different towns and times?)

Recall the recent US Magazine flap, when they put Obama and wife on their cover in a lovey dovey embrace - and the following week put Palin on the cover holding a baby with dubious headlines implying the kid was some sort of bastard child. This stuff is omnipresent in the media, but sadly, Americans apparently don't care, they'll eat whatever hog-slop you feed them.

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" - P.T. Barnum

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 2:05PM

Chicagoan4now et al --

Your claim that reliable sources of information include the Cato Institute and one or two other conservative think tanks illustrates my point perfectly.

Cato, like any good think tank, does NOT hire reporters to gather information.

Rather, it uses a variety of news sources (and I guarantee you among them are the NY Times) and then analyzes that information.

Cato and Heritage are -- I agree -- both excellent forums for hearing conservative analyses of policy proposals and finding good information about what's going on in the world.

Part of their reliability comes from their critically informed, thoughtful use of information sources that include the very sources the paranoiacs on this thread are descrying.

Now, if the idea of this thread were that as informed citizens we should exercise sensible caution and healthy skepticism while looking for information in a variety of places, no one would be more approving than I.

Instead, we hear the proto-fascistic murmurings that journalists and editors are somehow inherently anti-American. That smacks of the insecurity of ideologues, who always fear that the boarders of their land of shadows and shades will be menaced by encroaching news from the outsider world.

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 2:08PM

Chicagoan4now --

But I forgot to mention. Good for you on your success as an undergraduate and in the business world, though. We all need a pat on the back sometimes.

frank burns| 11.9.08 @ 2:26PM

He's not even in office, but already AP is comparing Obama to Lincoln and FDR - no kidding:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_go_pr_wh/presidents_in_crises

The cult of personality approach will only get worse as 'the messiah' faces actual life and death decisions.

the-gunslinger| 11.9.08 @ 3:33PM

A democracy doesn't need "The Media". A democracy needs Truth. There's a difference.

"Journalism" does not need "trained specialists". That is precisely what we have now. Empty-headed graduates of Leftist Journalism Schools. What "Journalism" needs is informed, mature, experienced people who actually know what they're talking about. Good writing isn't even necessary. That's what editors are for.

I'd rather read a businessman's take on the economy than a 20-year-old Leftist fresh from "Journalism School".

We don't need "reporters" as a specialty "profession". We need information from people who actually know their subject. And that hasn't been a "journalist" in at least 40 years.

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 4:57PM

the-gunslinger,

I think it's fair to say that the people you offer as possible sources for information, the people who "actually know their subject," could provide useful information.

However, the very work that allows them to "know their subject" precludes their spending their time writing up their knowledge for our benefit.

Take an uncontroversial example. As we speak, there are engineers somewhere developing automobiles that get better gas mileage. Their work is developing those cars, not writing articles about that work. Journalists go and learn about their work and write it up in articles that are then printed in the newspapers and magazines you and your friends despise. Literate people then read those articles and learn about that work. That's called the press.

By and large the press covers uncontroversial stories. It's usually just coverage of politics that gets attention as biased or not. But if you actually were to read a newspaper, you'd find that most stories are not directly about politics at all most of the time. (At least in a good newspaper.)

For political coverage, you should get your news from a variety of publications, but where, other than in the press, will you get your information?

The candidates themselves? The government?

The press is as American as apple pie, my friends. Read the first amendment, for crying out loud.

The founders LOVED the press. The press IS America. That's the idea. We comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. We raise hell in this country. We criticize, expose, and question authority. That's what it's all about. That's what happened when Bush was president (despite the whining of conservatives) and that's what will happen now that Obama is president (despite the whining of liberals).

CallMeIshmael| 11.9.08 @ 8:06PM

I don't allow ANY newspaper in our home anymore. I get all my news from the internet, talk radio, and FOX News nowadays and FOX News is going downhill.

John Fredcerick| 11.9.08 @ 11:09PM

Tom Paine -

Our founders recognized a free press was necessary for the distribution of political ideas - a press free of GOVERNMENT control. The 1st amendment became part of the Constitution in 1791 along with nine other amendments protecting personal liberties. As originally written, the First Amendment restrained only federal power. Our founders understood that political and economic freedom was contingent on the freedom to distribute political ideas without Government retaliation.

I propose that the MSM has become a guild. Isn't a guild an association of persons of the same trade or pursuits, formed to protect mutual interests and maintain standards? The uniformity of political opinion of the MSM arises, I contend, from the apprentice system usual in guilds and in which the norms, values and beliefs of the guild are impacted into the apprentice. I don't condemn the MSM for their opinions. I do question their self pronounced objectivity in political coverage.

Most of the negitive comments concerning the MSM that I've read in the posts above are addressed at the herd mentality evident in the political reporting of the MSM. No better proof I can offer is the Obama-Biden ticket earning the plaudits of most editorial pages, especially the major metros. The Democratic team had a 287 to 159, a nearly 2-1 margin and an even wider spread in the circulation of those papers. The circulation of the Obama-backing papers stands at over 23 million, compared with McCain's over 9 million. (see this link to the Editor and Publisher: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875230). Add in the reach of NBC, ABC, CBS and PBS and the landslide of pro-Obama coverage is...well...measurable. The popular vote totals for the election was Obama 52.6 and McCain 46.1.

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 11:39PM

Mr Frederick,

Your statistics are all very interesting, but they don't prove anything.

Saying the media is "liberal" is too simple. The media favors certain kinds of narratives and stories -- many of which sell conservative politicians and points of view short.

There is also an editorial slant towards liberal ideas.

However, this does NOT necessarily affect the accuracy of reporting. In fact, political bias often sharpens reporting and prompts better journalistic work.

You never stop to ask yourself it seems whether more editorial pages favored Obama because he is a better candidate. Isn't it possible? Maybe your perception is skewed, and not all those editorial pages.

Be that as it may. The important issue is this:

The press is FAR from a guild. More than any political slant or loyalty, the primary motivation of any given news source is COMPETITION with all other news sources.

Believe me. If CBS can make the NY Times look bad, they'll do it. They want to win in the market place of selling ideas. They tirelessly work to scoop one another, and part of that competition means getting stories right and having them confirmed by subsequent reporting.

The marketplace of ideas -- pretty much as a capitalist might expect -- actually works. The competition is fierce and tends to keep people relatively honest.

The market, however, is not infallible (like all markets). There are booms and busts. The OJ Simpson story, the Monica Lewinski story -- and many others -- swallow actual news in hours of meaningless drivel. Even the NY Times joined the cable channels this last spring in wall to wall Rev. Wright coverage for 3 weeks. Was that a part of the liberal conspiracy as well?

The fact is that journalism is a profession that attracts a range of people. Some are shady, weak, or stupid. Some are incredibly gifted and brave. (Over 100 journalists have died in Iraq bringing us news about what's going on over there.)

It's true. You need to think critically and read critically. It does take intellectual effort on your part. That's called being an informed citizen. Rush Limbaugh can feed you pre-chewed pabulum, but it's not good journalism and it's not reliable information. For that, you've got to do some work and read a lot.

Tom Paine| 11.9.08 @ 11:42PM

As for CallmeIshmael --

At least you still permit Melville in your home.

Does that whole gay marriage thing at the beginning of Moby Dick (between the noble Queequeg and our hero, Ishmael) ever bother your conscience?

sbark| 11.10.08 @ 12:39AM

To T.Paine........of your claim that the Econ Conf. held by Obama coverage was in no way bia'd.....and if GW had held the same conf?......If Palin was even at the same conf?......

bias can hit liberals across the face and they still would not recognize it.

Lets call it what it is.......not bias...propaganda

Michelle | 11.10.08 @ 1:52AM

Looks like journalism's chickens are coming home to roost! The rest of America has been waking up to what a handful of us have known for decades. These reporters are too busy making news rather than reporting it. They very much set the agenda for Obama and they thought they were oh so slick about it, too. Really the question of whether they think the average American reader is stupid is rhetorical. It's only a matter of what degree of stupid they think we are and I think it's pretty damned stupid. In any case, they lost all credibility to me years ago. Tom Paine, if some "journalist" told me it was raining outside, even if I heard the patter of rain on my roof and saw it raining outside, I'd have to run outside to check for myself. That's how little I believe any of your swill these days. I don't subscribe to any papers or magazines or cable anymore. I see no sense wasting my time or my money.

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 2:06AM

Michelle --

It shows.

George Washington| 11.10.08 @ 4:06AM

"Tom Paine"--

You are a disgustingly fat and brain-dead drooler with nothing better to do than sit at your computer and make retarded comments to people who are your moral and intellectual superiors in every way, and it shows.

Dr. Doom| 11.10.08 @ 11:28AM

"This country's genius IS this press."

Haaahhahahahaaahhahaahhaahahahahaaaaa....

johnnyb| 11.10.08 @ 12:02PM

To:
Tom Paine: Careful Tom we all have a good idea where your views point to. I suggest we all ignore Tom Paine b/c no matter what arguments you have based on actual facts you will never win with people like him......Why waste your energy on this liberal nut case.....

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 12:51PM

Do any of you ever think to question the hostility in the conservative movement to science, the courts, the schools, and journalism?

Odd that the ideas the Republicans offered this time around seem well-suited to the problems of the 1980s.

That's just about the time Rush Limbaugh started urging you to stop reading the newspaper, isn't it?

You're cutting yourselves out of the "market" of ideas.

And it shows.

Ray| 11.10.08 @ 2:02PM

Tom, you're the epitome of the supposed hostility you profess to demean. By generalizing as much as you do, you display your hypocrisy in just about every post. You continually define Conservatives as imbeciles, you continually claim that it's the Conservatives who are promoting intolerance, and you continually blame the Conservative for everything you think is unjust. Don't you even recognize your own hypocrisy? If so, why do you continue to display it?

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 2:23PM

Ray,

I've made plenty of points for you to disagree with. But instead you just generalize about my alleged generalizing.

I don't consider "conservatives" to be imbeciles at all. That's why I come here to read posts.

I do think the paranoid and the bigoted in your ranks are imbeciles. I think people who compare Obama to Hitler are fools. I think the people who are trading in absurd conspiracy theories are nitwits.

But I also think that many many conservatives have good and important things to say.

Actually, although I'm economically liberal, I'm fairly conservative my self on some social issues and on foreign policy.

I'm moved actually to go one better and inform you, Ray, that some of my best friends are conservative.

So why not make an argument and explain your reasoning rather than just calling names?

Sheila| 11.10.08 @ 3:50PM

Folks, please stop responding to "Tom Paine" and his supercilious comments - he is Bill Moyers' son and just relishes the audience. In true Stalinist fashion, he has purloined a legitimate name and meaning, and twisted it to suit his purpose - hence his totally inappropriate moniker. Kind of fits with his type of political thought - Obama's response to criticism is similar and again Stalinist (and yes, I do know whereof I speak, both through study and actual experience). I usually regret commenting on any of these posts, as I seek no one's approbation, but my frustration at the idiocy is at times, too much. Let it go - Moyers regards commenting at "conservative" sites as a sport akin to bearbaiting. Please deny him the pleasure.

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 6:11PM

Sheila --

Why is it so uncomfortable for you to hear someone disagree with you?

Can't you hear an opposing viewpoint without calling that person a Stalinist or a Nazi? You claim some special knowledge of totalitarianism, and maybe you have it. I doubt it though. That type of a comparison usually betrays abyssal ignorance.

You really need to get a grip. As for me being Moyers's son. That's just weird.

Chicagoan4Now| 11.10.08 @ 9:10PM

Tom Paine - you mis-speak when you accuse conservatives of not liking science, the courts and journalism. We like responsible, peer-reviewed science (example: on climate - http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html - peer reviewed and signed by over 30,000 scientists, and reported almost nowhere in the mainstream media. We like schools - we want them to improve - and would like more charter schools and vouchers, shown to succeed by people like Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby. We like the courts when they do their job and interpret the law and Constitution, not when they make law. We appreciate journalists who do their homework, prove their assertions with data and don't assume that their view is the only view.

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 10:58PM

Conservatives favor the facts that support the ideology.

As for journalists: who are these journalists you all of a sudden like? Which of them "do their homework" and meet with your favor?

Do you really believe that journalists are involved in some kind of liberal conspiracy?

I don't think any of you understand journalists or journalism very well. A conspiracy of journalists is simply unthinkable and impossible.

Rick Isley | 11.10.08 @ 11:06PM

I used to work for a major news corporation and following good journalistic standards, I made it a point to be politically objective. However I was surrounded by news people who were staunch left-wingers, and occasionally even the top management would let it slip that they were hard core liberals. All this bias had an impact on story coverage, including how news budgets were alloted. And I see this stuff is still going on, with the networks spending far more money to cover Obama than McCain during the election.

Tom Paine is a fool to think that intelligent, well informed people really need newspapers and the mass media to remain well informed. Maybe that was true in 1985, but not today. I long ago abandoned the dinosaur news media yet I am far better informed now than when I worked in the news business. Today I get my info from a wide array of local, national, and world news sources online. And I make it a point to ignore the heaps of fertilizer I come across, such as those dropped by Thomas Paine.

Tom Paine| 11.11.08 @ 12:52AM

As far as heaps of fertilizer go, I'm glad you manage to stay clear of them.

Quick question. You say you get your information from "a wide array of local, national, and world news sources online."

Where do these sources get their news?

At some point, we're talking about journalists doing the work of journalism. I applaud you for choosing a variety of sources. That's precisely what I've been arguing for.

What you don't seem to understand -- despite your vast experience in the news world -- is that all of these sources are in competition with one another. It is in their interest to get a better story than the next guy and have that story confirmed by subsequent reporting. It's not that journalists are magic or have special virtues: it's in the nature of their business to be interested in getting good, hard stories.

Hate the press all you want, folks. You'll turn yourselves into whiney, ill informed little Spiro Agnews.

I love the press. I love the WSJ and the NYT and the WP and the New Yorker and the National Review and the Economist. I love print journalism because that's where the best writers are. It's as simple as that. I don't need my political points of view spoon fed to me by loud mouths on the radio, and I don't need the news filtered by a website. I can be my own editor because I take the time to read carefully and critically.

Chicagoan4Now| 11.11.08 @ 9:24AM

Tom Paine - I don't need to "understand journalists very well." As we used to say in the very large corporation I worked for, 'I'm not interested in efforts, I'm interested in results.' (You keep saying how hard journalists work)

The results, however, are appalling. Journalists publish silliness like "scientific consensus" when that is flat out an oxymoron. Journalists don't bother to check sites like the Cato Institute for economic facts and analysis, and continue to write airheaded nonsense about government programs that simply isn't true. (Pick any topic - transportation, taxes, jobs,....)

Americans have the common sense to have caught on. President Bush, much maligned by journalists, has higher approval ratings than Congress, who has higher approval ratings than the press (who keep extolling Congress' "bail-outs" without noting the mess that will be passed to our children)

If the press even had the common sense to print "both sides" of an issue (vs editorializing in the news columns) they might regain some credibility. The Chicago Tribune did it once - back when Bush was running against Kerry - running a 2-column article with Chicago school economists assessing their programs.

And by the way, what makes the press think they can sell papers by making Americans feel bad about ourselves and the country? (We still have much lower unemployment and better GDP growth than socialized Europe, which the press keeps holding up as the ideal...example: government health care) How about some uplifting stories - for example, about microcharities who succeed and don't take government money (because of the strings attached). Maybe citizens would even donate, alleviating the "need" for "government programs" - which skim 30 cents off every dollar just to collect and redistribute it.