Saturday, October 19

Newspapers Suffer the Consequences for Carrying Liberal's Water


Va. paper banishes 'Redskins' from its pages

The Richmond Free Press is dropping the Redskins nickname for the Washington NFL team from its pages, calling it racist.
In an editorial Thursday, the weekly primarily aimed at the city's African-American community called the name insulting to Native Americans and divisive.
The team's owner, Daniel Snyder, has vowed to keep the nickname. He has called the nickname a "badge of honor."
The Oneida Indian Nation has protested the name.
President Barack Obama has also said he would think about changing the name if he owned the team.
The Free Press editorial said it was "expunging" the Redskins name from its news and editorial columns.
More Coverage of the Redskins Name Debate From MyFoxDC: redskins#axzz2i4n3s4M9

Newspapers love to blame their downward death spiral of declining readership, revenue, and relevance, solely on the advent of electronic media, because that way, they can avoid facing the fact that the real reason is because of their contents, or lack thereof.

It’s incredible that entire organizations, many over one hundred years old, have taken on such a child-like immaturity.  Refusing to even mention the name of someone or something that you may not agree with is a behavior that most people leave behind forever, the last time they leave the playground.   

So they don’t like the name “Redskins”, and now they’re going to have to verbally stumble around it, using phrases like “the Washington team”, and every time anyone reads such phrases, they will be reminded that the line between reporting and editorializing has been blatantly and purposely removed.

Incredible, and what newspapers don’t realize is that readers, whether consciously or not, whether they agree with them or not, can’t help but associate “incredible” with “not credible”.  Conservatives cancel their subscriptions in disgust, and liberals wander away without even knowing why.

I seldom have the need to use the word “ironic” in everyday life, but when describing liberals and liberal organizations, I find myself using it all the time.  It’s fascinating that people that make their living working with words, do not understand how words work.  In the same way you will only remember a detour on an otherwise uneventful trip, sidestepping a word and replacing it with a cumbersome phrase, only draws more attention to it, and the fact that the person who did so, is biased and has an ax to grind.  

The real reason for unbiased reporting was to reach as large an audience as possible.  When the news becomes editorialized, readership will quickly diminish by the percentage of people who disagree with it, and further erode by the percentage of people who agree with it, but can find more red meat elsewhere.

Newspapers have always thought that their readers were stupid. I can remember in grade school, being told that they were written at a third grade level.  Readers are smart enough however, to realize that if newspapers are willing to avoid using a word, when everyone knows what they are talking about, they just may well be willing to avoid running a story that nobody knows about, and if that is the case, then they probably have no problem modifying a story to fit their biased template.

That is why newspapers are going the way of the dinosaurs, but they still insist the cause of their demise is the electronic media.  There’s their immaturity again.  It’s like a kid blaming the fact that no one likes him on his freckles, when the real reason is because he’s an asshole.  When you start with a misdiagnosis of an ailment, the end result is seldom a cure.

The very fact that newspapers even try use electronic media as a scapegoat for their problems, erodes their credibility even more.  People want to think that the source from which they get their news, has it’s fingers on the pulse of the world.  If anyone should have seen the changes that have been brought about by the internet coming, it should have been the newspapers.

Newspapers had large, loyal audiences,(a huge head start on everyone else) and making the transition to the cyberworld should have been about as easy as changing the format of the printed page.  Oh yeah, and let’s not let them get away with blaming it on decreasing ad revenue.  Using the internet was just as inexpensive for them as it was for anyone else.

What they didn’t count on was the fact they would no longer have an oligopoly on the people’s source of news.  The days of only reporting on what you want people to know are over.  They have been over, for over ten years, but newspapers just can’t seem to realize it.  They just aim straight down and fire.

Update: Just in case you think I'm full of it, I just found this.

No comments:

RINO Blog Watch (Blog)

RINO Forum - User Submitted News

RINO Forum - Elections

Recent Posts

Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Views (since Blogger started counting)

Blog Archives

Follow by Email - Widget 13

Click Here To Become A Conservative Blogs Central Blogger

Back to TOP