What the Newsweek Farce Was Supposed To Distract Us From

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the news is a little different. At least from what I've seen, most people want real news.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where have you been looking? People who watch Fox or listen to Air America or watch Rush Limbaugh aren't looking for news... they're looking for people to reaffirm their beliefs and present the world in the way they want to see it.

Fox's success is precisely because they don't want 'real news.' When they did a study quizzing people on current events and where they got their news, Fox viewers were the most misinformed. I'm not saying this to bash on Fox Viewers (I do that, I admit, but here its relevent to the topic), rathar to demonstrate that they're not getting 'real' news.

Matter of fact, a lot of people don't want real news. They don't want to be troubled with the complexity of the world.

I remember seeing a comparison between Blair discussing the issues of Iraq and Bush. Blair talked about the politics and history of the region. Bush talked about "good vs evil."

A lot of people don't want the real world. They want simple. We're good - they're bad. They want news stations to ignore stories that are too critical. They don't want to be challenged.

[thatpfunk]

NYT is read by an extremely large audience, probably top 10 in the world...

I'm not sure how to find the numbers, quick google search didn't find anything.

[TransientR]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the news is a little different. At least from what I've seen, most people want real news. I just think that for a newspaper to be the most respected, it woul be widely read. I'm not trying to start and argument or anything, but I disagree about it being very respected.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't think the NY Times is one of the most influential and most read papers in the world, your wrong.

As for the paper's print circulation, almost every newspaper in the country is fighting declining circulation.

Their loss of print circulation has more to do with putting the paper up online every day for free; which says to me the Times probably has a higher total readership than ever. I live in N.J. and read the NY Times everyday, and haven't bought a copy in years.

Frank

[kurto]

And the growth of cable news networks has also contributed to the decline of newspapers. (not to mention books in general)

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
And the growth of cable news networks has also contributed to the decline of newspapers. (not to mention books in general)

[/ QUOTE ]Clearly this is because the Daily Show and the O'Reilly Factor are more reliable.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly this is because the Daily Show and the O'Reilly Factor are more reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admit, I think the Daily Show has the hardest cutting news on television.

[TransientR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly this is because the Daily Show and the O'Reilly Factor are more reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admit, I think the Daily Show has the hardest cutting news on television.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree about the Daily Show. Posters have talked about the brilliant juxtaposition of the kind of bare knuckled questioning Tony Blair has to endure, compared to the puffballs lobbed to Bush thanks to Rove's propaganda machine.

But I loved Samatha Bee's interview with top Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who gleefully explained how you can twist words to your advantage; if you are intending to weaken air pollution regulations, you call the measure the "Clear Skies Initiative," etc.

After three or four of these "this would do the Politburo proud" propaganda examples, she asked Luntz how he would spin the word "Orwellian," his long pause and facial expression was priceless.

Frank

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of turning everything into something partisan, you could just think.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they could do that, they wouldn't be supporting a lying p.o.s. like Bush in the first place.


q/q