Update on Gannett pitting

Remember how I had once said that I pitted Gannett because I thought that their papers were very substandard, and not at all what I had grown to love? Well, there are a couple of exceptions among the papers of that company, at least to me: The Tennessean of Nashville, TN, and at least so far, The Arizona Republic of Phoenix, AZ. I’m really liking those, for unknown reasons. Moral of the story: it was really the Greenville News that was the object of my pitting, and I think that I unfairly broadbrushed all of Gannett.

For me it’s an error of time rather than location. That is, Gannett papers were the worst a couple decades ago. Now, they haven’t changed, but much other media outlets have sunk below them.


I thought that such was what I said. Shows how much I know.

See? This is what happens when you only buy the expurgated version.

Well, they DO soil their nests!

I read about that in a book by Dikkens (the well known Dutch author)

Oh, you may have. It’s just that nobody remembers.

Seriously, the Tennessean? I can only imagine how bad the Greenville News was if you’re holding up the Tennessean as a model of journalism. I read it (on the web) fairly often because it’s the major local daily, but it’s quite terrible. It’s basically full of 1) local sports news, 2) local crime news, and 3) stupid fluff pieces. The stories are often confusing, misleading or lacking important details. The best newspaper in Nashville for actual news is the City Paper.

In that case, you have a point. I praised the Tennessean based solely on design. I didn’t realize that its journalism was that bad. I’m generally a visual reader when it comes to newspapers (in other words, if it looks good [if the paper is well-designed], I’ll read it); apparently, looks are just one part of the whole picture.

Also no.