Think About It

Newspapers - Is it a Dying Media?

A lot of my comfort items in life have disappeared or are disappearing.  One of those appears to be the newspaper.

Associated Press is reporting several major newspapers are undergoing massive personnel cuts, along with the sell off of some of their prime real estate.  It’s not just the major papers; when I talk to reporters who work for some of the medium sized papers in Kansas, they tell of cutbacks, merging jobs, and overall downsizing.  They are also telling me fewer people under the age of 40 are reading newspapers.

This week, a half dozen newspapers announced layoffs.  The parent company of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times said they are thinking of selling the famed Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times buildings.

The decline of the newspaper business is far worse than financial analysts had predicted.  Major papers in Detroit, Hartford, Baltimore, Boston, and Newark have all taken steps to downsize.

The problem isn’t just a matter of a lack of subscribers.  Advertising revenues are declining by up to nearly 25% per year as advertisers move to other advertising mediums, such as throw-away newspapers, Auto Trader, Craigslist, and eBay.

Questions:

Will newspapers, as we know them, disappear?

Can this slide be stopped?  If so, how?

Will people get their “in depth” news from television? 

What medium will local retailers use to advertise?

How the Liberal Media Twists the News

  About 20 years ago, I ran across an article in the old Los Angeles Herald Examiner (now defunct)  that outlined the phrases used by the media and politicians.  It was so good, I typed it off and kept it.  My apologies to the author of this article, because I failed to keep his or her name.  It, however, is priceless, because it will help you decode the drive-by-media’s code.

"Every field has its own special words and expressions which others find hard to understand.  Politics is no exception.  For those who have difficulty understanding the strange way words are used by politicians and the media, here is a glossary translating political rhetoric into plain English:

CRISIS:  any situation you want to change.

BILINGUAL:  unable to speak English.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY:  preferential treatment.

NON-JUDGMENTAL:  blaming society.

COMPASSION:  the use of tax money to buy votes.

INSENSITIVITY:  objection to the use of tax money to buy votes.

SIMPLISTIC:  an argument you disagree with but can't answer.

REHABILITATION:  magic words said before releasing criminals.

DEMONSTRATION:  a riot by people you agree with.

MOB VIOLENCE:  a riot by people you disagree with.

A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE:  a political controversy involving convictions of liberals.

AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE:  a political controversy involving convictions of conservatives.

FUNDING:  money from the government.

COMMITMENT:  more money from the government.

DOCUDRAMA:  a work of fiction about famous people.

AUTOBIOGRAPHY:  a work of fiction about yourself.

FEDERAL BUDGET:  a work of fiction about government spending.

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC:  a place where you do as you're told or get shot.

NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS:  organizations trying to create People's
Republics.

STEREOTYPES:  behavior patterns you don't want to think about.

CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION:  judges reading their own political views into the constitutions.

POLITICIZING THE COURTS:  criticizing judges for reading their own political views into the constitution.

A PROUD PEOPLE:  chauvinists you like.

BIGOTS:  chauvinists you don't like.

PRIVATE GREED:  making money selling people what they want.

PUBLIC SERVICE:  gaining power to make people do what you want them to.

INNOVATION:  something new.

NEW INNOVATION:  something new by someone who doesn't understand English.

SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBY:  politically organized conservatives.

PUBLIC INTEREST GROUP:  politically organized liberals.

ACCOUNTABILITY:  holding teachers, public officials, and private business responsible for the consequences of their misdeeds.

CHILLING EFFECT:  holding journalists responsible for the consequences of their misdeeds."

Questions:

What other terms can we add to this list?

The Media's Gift of the Magic Word for Obama

“Veritas” has some thoughts on a magical word that is currently in vogue.

“I have listened to many who would explain away the highly publicized inflammatory testaments made by the Rev Jeremiah Wright, Jr. The magical word that makes the statements vanish is "context." You must believe his supporters when they say all of the statements were taken out of "context." You must understand that the Rev Wright really did not say what we thought we heard him say; I did not hear any media type ask those who put forth this spin on the sayings of Rev. Wright ask wherein were the statements being taken out of context. To date, Rev.Wright has not been available for comment.

During his taped comments, Rev. Wright did not appear to be in a theatrical production nor did he appear to be quoting another person. I  thought that I knew the meaning of the word, but the consistent use of the word context made me want to know more about such a potent word  that can erase any statements made while undergoing an attack of foot in mouth disease.  I looked at a couple of sources to refresh my memory about the magical word "context." Below is what I found.

Context - Definitions from Dictionary.com
Context: That which surrounds, and gives meaning to, something else. In a grammar it refers to the symbols before and after the symbol under consideration. ...

Roget's New Millennium Thesaurus
Synonyms: ambience, background, conditions, connection, framework, lexicon, relation, situation, substance, text, vocabulary.

Had the defenders of the Rev Wright  said that the statements in question were "out of line,” but  weren't representative of the totality of Rev. Wright's sermons, I would have found it worthy of belief. To claim that his statements were taken out of context is unadulterated nonsense. It seems that there are many who have yet to learn that you cannot defend the indefensible.  It only makes matters worse.”

Obama's Friends

I spent this week in Chicago, and noticed Obama was getting a lot of ink from the Chicago newspapers regarding not only his relationship with Pastor Wright, but another Obama scandal that is eclipsing the Wright story.  Obama now has at least two 800 pound gorillas sitting in his living room.  The second is a long simmering story of Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko.  Rezko is currently under indictment for extortion, wire fraud, and money laundering.  The Syrian born Rezko was a high flying entrepreneur, who owned a chain of pizza places, and was involved in construction and real estate.  He was also a good friend of Barack and Michelle Obama’s.  Obama admitted yesterday, in a sit-down interview with reporters at the Chicago Tribune, that he has received at least $250,000 in donations from Rezko for his three campaigns.

Chicago newspapers began raising questions about the Obama-Rezko connection as far back as November 2006.  The Chicago Sun-Times published a story in June 2007 about letters that Obama had written in 1997 to city and state officials in support of a low-income senior citizen development project headed by Rezko and partner Allison Davis. The project received more than $14 million in taxpayer funds, including $885,000 in development fees for Rezko and Davis.

Wikipedia’s blurb on Antoin “Tony” Rezko reads in part:   “In November 2006, it came to light that in 2005, he [Obama] had purchased his house on the South Side of Chicago for $1,650,000, $300,000 below the asking price, on the same day that Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for the full asking price. ... According to Chicago Sun-Times columnist, Mark Brown, "Rezko definitely did Obama a favor by selling him the 10-foot strip of land, making his own parcel less attractive for development."  Obama acknowledges that the exchange may have created the appearance of impropriety, and stated "I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it."  On December 28, 2006, Rita sold the property to a company owned by her husband's former business attorney for $575,000, netting a profit of $54,500 prior to expenses and property taxes.  In October 2007, the new owners put the still vacant land up for sale again, this time for $1.5 million.”

The million dollar question is why it took Obama 16 months to attempt an explanation.  Obama is now trying to soft pedal the whole affair by saying in retrospect that perhaps he should have recognized that Rezko was prepping him for a political favor.  Obama seems to be developing a habit of being soooo surprised by the actions of his friends and associates.  Oh, and surprise, surprise--after the interview, reporters felt Senator Obama answered all of their questions in a satisfactory manner.

Is the Surge Working in Iraq?

When President Bush announced he was sending a surge of 30,000 more troops to Iraq, the screams in Congress could be heard in all the way to Baghdad.  Who among us can forget the infamous "General Betrayus" ad the liberals placed in newspapers the morning Congress was to begin their "impartial hearings" on the surge.  Then there was Hillary Clinton, flanked by fellow New York Senator Chuck Shumer, telling General Petreus that in order for her to believe his testimony, one "would have to have a willing suspension of disbelief."  A not so polite way of saying, "You're a liar."

Fast forward to the January 2008.  Terrorist attacks are down.  The dreaded Anbar region is once again under control.  The Iraqi police are assuming control over areas previously patrolled by coalition forces.  Normality is returning to Iraq.  Have terrorist attacks have stopped?  Of course not, but they have dwindled to the point they are manageable.   This will ultimately mean stability in Iraq.

Even the most vocal media opponents have grudgingly admitted the surge is working.   That is, except for a few die hards who have retreated into their media bunkers.  Michael Kinsley, who writes for the Washington Post, Time magazine, and Slate magazine (the liberal trinity) recently opined the surge isn't working.  How does he know?  He cites the fact there are still 130,000 troops in Iraq!  Wow, I didn't know that.  (Kinsley is a unabashed Obama supporter who believes the fact that Obama spent the first four years of his life in Indonesia qualifies as foreign affairs experience.  But that's another story.)  Kinsley is representative of the hard-core Bush haters, who will never have a kind word to say about him.  I strongly suspect that history will treat George W. Bush far kinder than he has been treated by today's media.