After a century and a half, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is being forced to stop the presses. There will still be one major newspaper in town (the Seattle Times), but it’s not in particularly good health either…and it’s never good when a journalism outlet is forced to shut its doors. Granted, this is happening in a lot of other markets too, but that doesn’t make it any easier.
And one thing I don’t understand is why there are lots of illiterate right-wing assholes who are positively gloating about this. Take a look at the comments here and here–it’s both depressing and kinda scary.
(Yes, it’s possible to be right-wing/conservative/Republican without being an illiterate asshole. This is not a pitting of reasonable conservatives.)
Well, that’s what you get for running a pro-tax, anti-business paper. You go out of business!
Or so I see from my online research of this issue.
(But wait, isn’t Seattle a pretty liberal town? If they really were a liberal-biased paper, shouldn’t that have HELPED them in that city instead of doomed them, no matter what the “business environment” was like? Or is that supposed to be a sign of just how terrible liberal economic beliefs are?)
If Freepers are knuckle-draggers, the people who regularly post in the comments section of the online editions of major newspapers are elbow-draggers, no matter how liberal the town.
'Struth. I have not yet seen a local newspaper online comments section that didn’t look like the scribblings on the walls of a padded room in a hospital for patients with religious delusions.
I don’t know a thing about the Seattle PI, but I do know that there exist news sources which are biased. Assuming that the SPI is one such news source, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to express happiness if it goes out of business.
I wonder how people on this board would react if Fox News went out of business. I wonder if you would pit anyone who gloated about it.
Since most daily papers still tend to be relatively fair and accurate in their reporting (not talking about editorial pages or columnists, just news reporting), that makes them “liberal” Anything which is not overtly right wing is, by definition, “far left” with these people.
So the loss of any media which is not Limbaugh approved is seen as a victory by these people. Objective news sources are anathema to them.
The PI was a great paper, with incredibly fair reporting and excellent content. What a pity so many people can’t tell the difference between the editorial page and the rest, or even know anything at all about the traditions of the editorial page.
Anyway, as someone who read the PI for years, I call bullshit on any idiot who says it was a “lefty rag.” That’s just utter crap. It should be obvious to any moderate that the PI worked hard on its objective journalistic standards. You never saw the PI editorialize in its headlines on the front page, unlike, say, the Spokane Spokesman-Review (the Spokane paper, for example, ejaculated “McCAIN’S BOLD CHOICE!” in four-inch letters on the front page to announce he had picked Palin.)
The PI was been around for 146 years; one of the oldest continually run papers in the country. This is a tragedy.
Now why the hell would you say that the mere existence of bias in a particular media outlet justifies wanting that outlet to disappear entirely?
All journalism exhibits bias of some sort to some extent. As long as it meets some basic minimum standard of honesty and informativeness, it’s serving a useful function.
For one thing, my beef with Fox News is not about its conservative bias, but its willingness to publish outright lies (see the concurrent Pit thread about the Joe Biden “interview”). For another, even Fox News is contributing something to maintaining an at least somewhat informed public. I shudder to think where NPR-loathing, newspaper-hating, “liberal-media”-suspecting Fox watchers would be getting their “news” from if Fox weren’t around.
A good point. I guess one difference would be that we’re right and they’re… no, that’s not good.
I think the pitting takes as a premise that the paper wasn’t as extraordinarily skewed as Fox, and is part of a larger framework of journalistic outlets that, if substantially weakened, is likely to cause harm to society as a whole.
There is a marketing campaign afoot to paint traditional sources of media --branded “main-stream-media”–as unreliable and a bane on truth. Clearly there are many facets to it, but one goal is to drive consumers to so-called alternate outlets, whether pajamasmedia, Rush, or something similar. Pitting the illiterate galoots who fall for this in its entirety, for failing to recognize the difference between news sources and propaganda sources, for failing to recognize the overall harm that comes from fracturing media to such a degree that we lose a valuable societal function is a worthy pitting.
Frankly it isn’t a right wing or left wing issue - the American public is deeply distrustful of the institutionalized media in any form.
This is true even as they happily consume much of its content.
So when a paper or a network goes under, the reaction is always the same - people state that they earned failure by not earning trust or loyalty or whatever. Then the media left are under additional pressure - because they’re the ones left standing with less competition. They should be fairer, gain more community loyalty, etcetera and etcetera.
I read a couple of papers every day. One of them isn’t the Washington Star which folded back in 1981. I also don’t read the Pittsburgh Press, which folded more than fifteen years back. I manage to keep up with things. And if these papers get into trouble, I have no doubt others will be around. I read the Examiner from time to time - it’s good to see an upstart paper in DC, even if this was the modification of the mission of a suburban paper.
Publication is changing - this doesn’t mean news is going away. Sites like Politico break news every day - and specialized blogs like scotusblog are the go to resources for their specialty - consulted even by reporters. This is an interesting and healthy development, and we will see how it plays out in the end.
How exactly is my opinion uninformed? I’ve read enough newspapers and watched enough tv news shows to know that many exhibit a political slant. Do you dispute this?