Comments on: LA Times running front page ads disguised as news stories, kind of like they did during Obama’s presidential campaign

By: Patterico’s Pontifications » Front Page “News”

Patterico’s Pontifications » Front Page “News” — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:18:40 +0000

[...] Again, that is. [...]

By: LaMonte

LaMonte — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:13:39 +0000

There is probably a continuum of what thoughtful people would value and pay for in a news delivery vehicle.
Here is my view of the slippery slope:
1/ Timely, comprehensive news and information, sans added viewpoints of the reporter/editor/headline writer, which puts the reader at the times and places of events the reader could not possibly be in person. Plus neutral context information.
2/ Selective reporting which filters out as not-news things which do not conform to the parent organization’s slant and at the same time emphasizes those which do conform.
3/ Opinions presented as news/facts. This includes first doing the story then finding people to selectively quote in support of it.
4/ Paid advertising presented as news/facts.
5/ Unpaid third-party communications presented as news/facts. Includes official politburo news releases.

Have fun with your own version of the slope and placing on it some famous organizations — such as Pravda or the New York Times.

By: chapoutier

chapoutier — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:42:12 +0000

Don’t worry WarEagle,

I just signed up for delivery of the WaPo. I will dedicate it to you.

By: Cosmo

Cosmo — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 05:50:56 +0000

It’s getting so I don’t even feel comfortable lining my birdcage with this stuff anymore.

The NSPCA might get “curious.”

By: harkin

harkin — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 05:14:16 +0000

I don’t remember the newsroom saying anything when the Times did its hit piece on Arnold, or when it failed to acknowledge all the mistakes pointed out by Patterico.

But ads are some new form of shame?

pffft…..please.

By: Marc

Marc — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:30:31 +0000

The LA Times is not alone in allowing advertisements to pose as news articles on its pages. At the New York Times, Roger Cohen has been writing advertisements for the Islamic Republic of Iran for several months now.
Fortunately, nobody bothers to read Roger Cohen’s poorly written drivel.

By: hawkeye54

hawkeye54 — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:22:22 +0000

On April 10th, 2009 at 11:07 am, CrazyFool said:
So did either of their paying readers object?

Well, as one of those two, I don’t object. Well, I only subscribe to the Sunday edition and I only read the sports, comics, business and travel sections.

My wife likes the coupons and sales ads which is the only reason we’ve continued to subscribe. As far as I’m concerned the whole paper is an ad for the Democrat Party. I only read the sports, comics, business and travel sections.

If, or when, the Times folds, I’m sure my wife would miss the ads and coupons, but the merchants will probably make other arangements to get them to us anyway. Can’t say I’d miss anything else about that fishwrap.

By: WarEagle82

WarEagle82 — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:14:44 +0000

I stopped subscribing to the Washington Post in 1994 or 1996. It had little to do with the rise of “alternate media” and the internet. I guess I am just way ahead of my time.

By: sims

sims — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:10:00 +0000

I have to agree with chap and speakeasy.
The decline in print media circulation can mainly be attributed to electronics; both the net and cable. Sure, a lot of us don’t care for slanted news stories and some may have stopped buying papers but, without a viable alternative, the vast majority of people would still get print media. The internet and cable has given us another place to go for news. The internet and cable also have replaced reading. How many people under the age of 40 really like reading a newspaper? People love getting those sound bites on TV or reading a quick headline on the net.
My gripe with newspapers is the lack of in-depth reporting sometimes and the lack of balance but I still read a lot of the paper (yes, I’m old) along with watching cable and reading blogs and etc.

By: WarTip

WarTip — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:51:49 +0000

Believe it? Of course people will believe it. Their job as the main stream media is only to report the news not to create it. That is the government’s job.

I really am thinking about changing my name to John Galt V. (Think V for Vendetta)

By: iamsaved

iamsaved — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:48:57 +0000

Technology is a big factor in the paradigm shift to the web and so is the economy but not enough to account for the steady decline in the liberal media venues. Not just newspapers.

As to ABC, CBS, and NBC, they are free on the public air waves unlike cable or satellite. There is a large population that does not subscribe to pay tv when they live in a market where reception is decent.

So, in a sense, economics does come into play when you include those three – if they weren’t free, I doubt their market share would be that great.

By: chapoutier

chapoutier — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:29:20 +0000

Audit Bureau of Circulations.

By: DBNinKY

DBNinKY — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:20:58 +0000

As if the NYT cares about the Post of the Daily News. No, it was some outside watchdog group.

But my point is, was the audit from a reliable, non-biased firm?

By: SpeakEasy

SpeakEasy — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:16:03 +0000

Chap,
I have been saying the losses in news print have more to do with the media- electronic vs. print- than the actual content. Also the immediate nature of electronic media that print cannot duplicate. All that being said, I have not trusted print media for some time due to the liberal bias I perceive. A personal choice but perception in this case is reality.

By: chapoutier

chapoutier — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:13:23 +0000

It has to hurt a little bit, and be part of the reason for their demise!

No doubt. I just think the internet is far and away the majority cause.