General Discussion

FakeNoose

(35,980 posts)

34. Yes ... add to that the economic realities of the newspaper business

Sun Oct 6, 2024, 12:44 PM

Oct 6

It costs money to print ink on paper. They have to pay salaries, they have to own printing presses and pay for electricity to run them, they buy supplies such as paper, ink, etc. A lot of money goes into printing those rolls of newsprint, whether people buy the papers or not. Generally when people DO buy the newspapers, it's to read "yesterday's news" because they already saw it all on TV the night before. It's difficult and cut-throat for these newspapers to stay in business and turn a profit.

On the other hand, I do believe that professional journalists who went to school and earned a journalism degree - many of them - do have standards for truthful, responsible reporting even if their employers and managers don't. We should recognize and reward those professionals who are trying to do their jobs responsibly, and hopefully share that recognition here on DU.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Wednesdays raging moderate

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Regarding the New York Times, America's 'newspaper of record.' [View all] PatrickforB Oct 6 OP

Thank you EverHopeful Oct 6 #1

You know, I heard on MSNBC that the Trump campaign admitted they had spent millions on PatrickforB Oct 6 #6

NYT has an overwhelmingly high percentage of readership by Democrats. Making a profit, requires readership. Silent Type Oct 6 #2

Yup, my friend thinks the NYT is gospel....... a kennedy Oct 6 #4

Calling it a horse race would indicate that they would promote the losing side to keep things even cutroot Oct 6 #3

Yup FHRRK Oct 6 #33

I find the NYT to be different from what you are saying here. I find nothing outrageous about their reporting or about CTyankee Oct 6 #5

Ochs-Sulzberge family holds 90% of the voting shares of the NYT Voltaire2 Oct 6 #7

Money, money and more money. That's the point even with supermajority owned companies. paleotn Oct 6 #24

So good! Thank you! sarchasm Oct 6 #8

Sure, if you wish. n/t PatrickforB Oct 6 #57

Spot on!! Posting on Facebook. h2ebits Oct 6 #9

See "NY Times finally details Trump's cognitive decline in scathing article" Towlie Oct 6 #10

And how long did it take the NYT to come around to this point? erronis Oct 6 #13

No, not at all. Because it was a long time coming, and I'm considering the coverage for the entire year, PatrickforB Oct 6 #58

Yes, and it only took them nine years. hatrack Oct 7 #61

You wrapped up the major points very succinctly. Thanks! erronis Oct 6 #11

SAY IT!!! Montauk6 Oct 6 #12

Yeah that works temporarily Farmer-Rick Oct 6 #14

Great idea! Wild blueberry Oct 6 #15

Great post about policy Felicita Oct 6 #16

One of the best posts I've read recently. BattleRow Oct 6 #23

It is also why billionaires buy news organizations. They profit in many other ways than just ratings or clicks/ KPN Oct 6 #17

More circus than bread nowadays... BattleRow Oct 6 #20

They sure are toxic waste. Dave Bowman Oct 6 #18

Great comments DENVERPOPS Oct 6 #19

After Project 2025.. BattleRow Oct 6 #21

Good one DENVERPOPS Oct 6 #40

Oh,YES! And for a slightly off topic..another BattleRow Oct 6 #41

Absolutely agree Blue Full Moon Oct 6 #22

Thank you for a great post. You are an excellent teacher. Timeflyer Oct 6 #25

Most excellent post! Thank you megapuzzler Oct 6 #26

Kudos to you! I used to read the NYT front to back..not the sports, and loved it. Gave up on them a few yrs back PortTack Oct 6 #27

This message was self-deleted by its author Dan Oct 6 #28

Exactly. HappyLarge Oct 6 #29

Absolutely! And welcome to our little party. paleotn Oct 6 #31

Fairness Doctrine was just icing. Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. paleotn Oct 6 #30

"AND Reagan killing the Fairness Doctrine back in '87" It is amazing how much damage Reagan did to the USA Escurumbele Oct 6 #32

Yes ... add to that the economic realities of the newspaper business FakeNoose Oct 6 #34

I recall when Seymour Hersh worked for them. BattleRow Oct 6 #42

He doesn't get much play because he went off the deep end. Embracing conspiracy theories, Putin, tritsofme Oct 6 #47

We all have our opinions as to when BattleRow Oct 6 #48

So you think the pro-Putin nonsense, making excuses for Trump is...good journalism? tritsofme Oct 6 #49

I am unaware of that which you speak BattleRow Oct 6 #50

There has been lots written about his fall. tritsofme Oct 6 #51

I certainly will review this. Thank you. BattleRow Oct 6 #53

I like Maines approach. infullview Oct 6 #35

You make very good points. But. markodochartaigh Oct 6 #36

I would say it isn't just the cynicism misanthrope Oct 6 #45

Like Juvenal said two thousand years ago, markodochartaigh Oct 6 #46

Sidenote: Fairness doctrine only applied to over-the-air broadcasts. thesquanderer Oct 6 #37

Granted but talk radio was the most pervasive method misanthrope Oct 6 #44

Social media in particular is designed to give us more of littlemissmartypants Oct 6 #38

I cancelled my NYT subscription back in 2015 due to Clinton email coverage LetMyPeopleVote Oct 6 #39

Saddest of all is that none of this is hidden knowledge misanthrope Oct 6 #43

I enjoy the Times bif Oct 6 #52

Dodge v Ford, Just Jerome Oct 6 #54

100%! n/t PatrickforB Oct 6 #59

Take the money out of elections and the MSM's motivation and actions become irrelevant. pecosbob Oct 6 #55

Great post. raccoon Oct 6 #56

Agree ScubaSteve Oct 7 #60

I am happy to rec. pandr32 Oct 7 #62

K&R, great post and I love your idea...one little rule change, and some tweaks to the SC and their c-rational Oct 7 #63