Got the idea for this one when I went to buy a newspaper and it was so light that I thought someone had filched a section.
All The News That’s Printed to Fit
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
8 Comments. Leave new
At this point a subscription should just get you a kindle and some e-text. Paper is fun and all but there are probably better ways to deliver content.
Even content that people will pay for. . .
The "pay for news" model might work for Pacifica Radio, but it does not seem to work for large "newspapers of record" like the New York Times.
We all understand when they squash stories so as not to offend large ad customers. That's business. It was not business to print a daily propaganda orgy to drum-up the invasion of Iraq. Not to mention other stories in the past 8 years that would have been worth the price a newspaper. Other stories they left to foreign news establishments or blogs.
Hell, even I have posted stories on newsgroups from first-hand experience or when there was a news black-out. Everyone should.
Fear story after fear story, but never something that you should fear.
I agree with Palmer. However, I do see a conceptual rift between those of older and those of younger generations. While paper is, to me, simply the technology employed to deliver the content, it is an aspect of the overall product in terms of aesthetics, nostalgia, continuity, ease of use, and even lifestyle (reading the morning paper over coffee).
As I understand it the major problem is that advertisements for print material generate more revenue than online advertising, right? My lady-friend got an iPhone a few weeks ago which can call up just about anything I can think of, even google earth.
Seems to me that we're all moving toward a hyper-electrical/electronic world, which has its benefits. The only problem is that people base their livelihoods on industries and when they change, people are left out in the cold.
Just look at the glut of finance majors graduating right now.
Anon is right, the NY Times held stories til after the 2004 election that would have probably sunk the Bush Administration. They shamelessly championed the invasion of Iraq with no actual critique or critical analysis of legality or merit.
But this issue isn't really about that. This issue is about a fundamentally archaic economic model that can't really function with today's information flows. By 'function,' I mean leech off some level of profit margin to support themselves.
Only people who have the expendable cash, the time and educational background to read news, and the time to devote some level of energy to civic issues are going to pay money for information. The bottom line is that most Americans work far too much, earn far too little, and are so poorly educated about the world around them to see the value in quality news.
The context in which this knowledge drought is taking place is pretty important to understanding the plight of newspapers.
For example. Ted, your cartoons are sophisticated and witty, how many ordinary people do you think would actually laugh at them?
the NY Times held stories til after the 2004 election that would have probably sunk the Bush Administration.
You are wrong Aggie, this is just a six day sampling of the NYT prior to the election:
Letting Down the Troops
By BOB HERBERT
We've dealt ourselves the cruelest of hands in Iraq. We can't win this war and, tragically, we don't know how to end it.
October 29, 2004
Abu Ghraib, Unresolved
There is an enormous gap between the administration's public statements on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and its private actions.
October 28, 2004
White House Of Horrors
By MAUREEN DOWD
Maureen Dowd Op-Ed column holds Vice Pres Dick Cheney dragged United States into war in Iraq to deter terrorism, only to worsen terrorist threat; questions his belief that Iraq is success story; holds Bush administration has set off many false alarms, while ignoring real ones
October 28, 2004
Making Things Worse
The invasion of Iraq has now achieved what Saddam Hussein did not: putting dangerous weapons in the hands of terrorists and creating an offshoot of Al Qaeda.
October 26, 2004
A Culture of Cover-Ups
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The president's officials have thrown a shroud of secrecy over any information that might let voters assess his performance in the war on terror.
October 26, 2004
How to Skew Intelligence
Thursday's report from the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee is another reminder of this administration's poor accountability on Iraq.
October 23, 2004
Those NY Times examples are funny. In a way they prove Aggie Dude's point.
They're great examples of the range of acceptable debate: You may criticize how the war is being managed, but you may not question the war itself. Just like Vietnam.
The war was is illegal invasion, sold to the American people by organizations like the NY Times who didn't question the lies. Go here to learn more:
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/war_in_iraq
And yes, the Times did hold stories before 2004 that would have sunk Bush. I remember noting them at the time. I'm sure a time line-exists somewhere–I don't feel like taking the time to create one for some stupid anonymous poster.
Anonymous sed… We all understand when they squash stories so as not to offend large ad customers. That's business. It was not business to print a daily propaganda orgy to drum-up the invasion of Iraq.
Are you serious? Business is always the reason. War is business. The original Gulf War set their mouths watering. Cheap oil forever. The problem was that this time the Iraquis didn't just lie down.
As disasterous as this war has been for America, it has still been a cash bonanza for corporate America. Where do you think those trillions have been going, to the Iraquis? No. Money has been going to defense industry contractors. Check the DOD list, then look at FAIR`s list of media ownership. You`ll see a lot of overlap.
Or, if that`s too `conspiracy minded`, how about the simple business model solution. The first Gulf War cemented CNN a place in the market and in history. They made war entertaining again, unlike those
depressing Vietnam journalists.
Anti-vietnam war sentiment did not become allowable until the Tet Offensive made it clear how expensive victory was actually going to be. In the same way, anti-war sentiment regarding Iraq never entered the mainstream until it became clear the Iraquis were not going to surrender to their crushing defeat this time.
The reason is and always has been business.
Happy Easter Statists!