Gene Lyons on Bad news for the news

[mooseandsquirrel]

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1787: "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government. I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

Think of it. Only newspapers, no government at all.

By 1807, after two terms as president, Jefferson somewhat changed his tune.

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper," he wrote. "Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day."

snip

http://moose-and-squirrel.com/gene/gene.html

m&s
[e-mail]

[Miss Authoritiva]

1. The good and the bad about newspapers

No doubt about it, newspapers will have to do a major revamp of their business models if they expect to survive. I gave up subscribing to the NYT years ago -- something to do with Judith Miller. (Then I realized how much I missed the NYT crossword puzzle, so for approx $40/year I subscribed to their online crossword puzzle service.) Where I live there have never been decent local newspapers. The locals exist mainly to print two AP stories on the front page, miscelleneous police blotter reports, obits, wedding announcements, and then dozens and dozens of auto dealer ads. There is never any serious coverage of state and local issues. Guess what? Several excellent blogs have filled the void, and that's where I head when I want to know what's going on about proposed rail and bus routes, proposed municipal budgets, etc.

As to the major newspapers like the NYT and the LA Times, -- the one thing they had the money and the talent to do very well -- international and national news -- they bollixed to death during the 2000 election and the Iraq War. And they're still bollixing away during the financial crisis. I've come to learn that I'll have to wait 18 to 24 months to find out what really happened once the authoritative books start appearing. Cruelly enough, sometimes the books, like Fiasco, are written by reporters, like the WaPo's Tom Ricks, who somehow managed to avoid much accuracy in their real-time reportage.

[Doctor_J]

2. The ones that actually have to print news will fail

The propaganda rags like all of Scaife's, Moon's, Murdoch's, etc. will continue to publish right-wing lies, smears, libel, and propaganda. Their publishers don't care if they lose money because they get their investment back in budget-busting tax breaks, environmental laxness, and so on.

[Tutankhamun]

3. Imagine what will happen to political discourse

if a POS such as "The New York Post" becomes the paper of record.

Not surprisingly, the newspaper industry is experimenting with new business models. We may see a donation-based business model succeed for some of the larger papers. Ad revenue may remain important, but both individual and institutional financial support will likely become crucial.

[bemildred]

4. I contribute to DU once a year, and do it for the News service they provide.

I would gladly do it for a real news organization, as long as they do not filter or spin my news. I probably ought to subscribe to one of more of the news aggregators I use, for the same reason, to encourage them.

It ought to be easy to develop web-based news infrastructure, if done in the right way. It has to be demand driven, not advertiser or money driven. People will not pay to be fed bullshit for the rich. A lot of the problems print organizations have is that they are so used to catering to advertisers and political organizations that they do not understand how a web based news service would work. I'm not going to pay somebody for feeding me propaganda. They have to want to serve my interests.