Links
Archives
- 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003
- 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003
- 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003
- 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003
- 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004
- 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004
- 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004
- 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
- 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
- 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
- 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
- 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
- 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
- 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
- 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
- 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
- 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
- 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
- 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
- 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
- 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
- 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
- 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007
- 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
A media "watchdog" site commenting on inadequacy and inaccuracy in coverage of news events. While it has a distincly political emphasis, it will comment on other cultural issues.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Decline of the 4th Branch; Media Meltdown: I have chronicled a list of inaccuracies and instances of bias in the media. Perhaps I'm not the only one that noticed. Attention "mainstream media":
A future of empty doorsteps? Dark days for US newspapers
Nov 13 9:53 AM US/Eastern
Dark days are ahead for American newspapers, as sales tumble, a warp-speed news culture leaves lumbering dailies behind and scandals over flawed reporting taint heavyweight titles.
US papers are battling an explosion in online information, a news agenda powered by bloggers and 24-hour cable news, and they can't seem to connect with young readers.
Credibility questions hang over several papers and journalists are under more scrutiny than ever in the highly polarised US political climate.
Doomsayers say changes in modern lifestyles mean the days when American homeowners open their front door every morning and haul in a thick multi-section paper may be numbered.
Latest figures released by the Audit Bureau of Circulations found a 2.6 percent drop in circulation for 786 newspapers across the country in the six months to September -- meaning that 1.2 million people deserted their paper.
Several US newspaper giants suffered heavy circulation drops -- figures which mirror the declining readership across the globe.
The San Francisco Chronicle saw circulation fall 17 percent for its Wednesday to Saturday editions, while another big beast of the newspaper jungle, the Boston Globe, slumped 8.2 percent to a weekday average of 414,225.
Bucking the trend, two papers -- USA Today and the New York Times, the closest to national dailies in the United States -- gained readership of just under one percent.
The Columbia Journalism Review, in a recent editorial titled "The American Newspaper at a Crossroads," outlined a vicious circle, where falling circulation figures prompt further cost cutting.
"This can work for a while, but at some point it has to erode the quality of the product, which further erodes readership, because who needs a paper when the reporters producing it are too rushed to get beneath the surface," CJR said.
Some big-budget papers like the New York Times, the Baltimore Sun and the Boston Globe have cut jobs in the newsroom or the advertising department.
Meanwhile, a generation gap is widening, and unless younger Americans quickly get into the habit of reading a daily paper, circulation figures seem sure to dip even lower.
In a survey last year, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found only 23 percent of people under 30 read a daily newspaper, compared with 60 percent of older people.
The number of people going online for news, or getting their fix from cable television, was growing, the survey found, a trend that was also hitting traditional television network news.
Executives at a World Association of Newspapers meeting in Madrid on Thursday were told that the traditional newspaper has no future without online editions.
With that in mind, many US papers are trying new ways to chase fast-moving readers, expanding online content and offering portable "commuter" papers.
Some are also experimenting with design and considering a tabloid rather than a broadsheet format, in a tactic tried by several top papers in Britain.
That has been a sea change in an industry where great papers are typically dryer, more traditional and wordy and less irreverent than counterparts, for instance, in Britain or Australia -- more Neue Zurcher Zeitung or Le Monde than the London Times or the Sydney Morning Herald.
But predictions of doom are "completely premature," said Randy Bennett, vice president of the Association of American Newspapers.
"I think some people have a very narrow view and look at decline in circulation numbers and see the end is near," he said. "But it is a very incomplete story if you are not looking at how newspapers reach people across a variety of media platforms."
Some readers already get their newspaper exclusively online, in an easy commuter version, or even have favourite sections e-mailed to them.
Though there is much talk of bloggers and websites superseding "mainstream media," most offer links to established sources with the resources to chase down the news.
"People point to the success of Yahoo News and Google News. If you look at the stories they are pointing to, they are from local newspapers which still have the greatest editorial capacity (of) any other media," said Bennett.
Copyright AFP 2005, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium
Source Link: A future of empty doorsteps? Dark days for US newspapers
A future of empty doorsteps? Dark days for US newspapers
Nov 13 9:53 AM US/Eastern
Dark days are ahead for American newspapers, as sales tumble, a warp-speed news culture leaves lumbering dailies behind and scandals over flawed reporting taint heavyweight titles.
US papers are battling an explosion in online information, a news agenda powered by bloggers and 24-hour cable news, and they can't seem to connect with young readers.
Credibility questions hang over several papers and journalists are under more scrutiny than ever in the highly polarised US political climate.
Doomsayers say changes in modern lifestyles mean the days when American homeowners open their front door every morning and haul in a thick multi-section paper may be numbered.
Latest figures released by the Audit Bureau of Circulations found a 2.6 percent drop in circulation for 786 newspapers across the country in the six months to September -- meaning that 1.2 million people deserted their paper.
Several US newspaper giants suffered heavy circulation drops -- figures which mirror the declining readership across the globe.
The San Francisco Chronicle saw circulation fall 17 percent for its Wednesday to Saturday editions, while another big beast of the newspaper jungle, the Boston Globe, slumped 8.2 percent to a weekday average of 414,225.
Bucking the trend, two papers -- USA Today and the New York Times, the closest to national dailies in the United States -- gained readership of just under one percent.
The Columbia Journalism Review, in a recent editorial titled "The American Newspaper at a Crossroads," outlined a vicious circle, where falling circulation figures prompt further cost cutting.
"This can work for a while, but at some point it has to erode the quality of the product, which further erodes readership, because who needs a paper when the reporters producing it are too rushed to get beneath the surface," CJR said.
Some big-budget papers like the New York Times, the Baltimore Sun and the Boston Globe have cut jobs in the newsroom or the advertising department.
Meanwhile, a generation gap is widening, and unless younger Americans quickly get into the habit of reading a daily paper, circulation figures seem sure to dip even lower.
In a survey last year, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found only 23 percent of people under 30 read a daily newspaper, compared with 60 percent of older people.
The number of people going online for news, or getting their fix from cable television, was growing, the survey found, a trend that was also hitting traditional television network news.
Executives at a World Association of Newspapers meeting in Madrid on Thursday were told that the traditional newspaper has no future without online editions.
With that in mind, many US papers are trying new ways to chase fast-moving readers, expanding online content and offering portable "commuter" papers.
Some are also experimenting with design and considering a tabloid rather than a broadsheet format, in a tactic tried by several top papers in Britain.
That has been a sea change in an industry where great papers are typically dryer, more traditional and wordy and less irreverent than counterparts, for instance, in Britain or Australia -- more Neue Zurcher Zeitung or Le Monde than the London Times or the Sydney Morning Herald.
But predictions of doom are "completely premature," said Randy Bennett, vice president of the Association of American Newspapers.
"I think some people have a very narrow view and look at decline in circulation numbers and see the end is near," he said. "But it is a very incomplete story if you are not looking at how newspapers reach people across a variety of media platforms."
Some readers already get their newspaper exclusively online, in an easy commuter version, or even have favourite sections e-mailed to them.
Though there is much talk of bloggers and websites superseding "mainstream media," most offer links to established sources with the resources to chase down the news.
"People point to the success of Yahoo News and Google News. If you look at the stories they are pointing to, they are from local newspapers which still have the greatest editorial capacity (of) any other media," said Bennett.
Copyright AFP 2005, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium
Source Link: A future of empty doorsteps? Dark days for US newspapers
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Iraqi WMD and the Democrats: If President Bush manipulated the intelligence on Iraqi WMD, he must have done it while he was the governor of Texas. Here are some quotes by Democrats going back into the 90's that those in the "mainstream" media don't seem to be able to locate:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998
"He''ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kerry October 9th, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps ex-Ambassador Joe Wilson and ex-President Jimmy Carter should spend a little quality time reading up on the official Democrat Party position on Saddam and Iraqi WMD...... just a thought. A wilder thought yet... maybe the "mainstream" media could go back to some of these Dem-NO-crats and ask them why they were manipulating the intelligence as far back as 1998.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998
"He''ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kerry October 9th, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps ex-Ambassador Joe Wilson and ex-President Jimmy Carter should spend a little quality time reading up on the official Democrat Party position on Saddam and Iraqi WMD...... just a thought. A wilder thought yet... maybe the "mainstream" media could go back to some of these Dem-NO-crats and ask them why they were manipulating the intelligence as far back as 1998.
