Inkara1! Front & Center
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
Stop Laughing
New Member
This doesn't help their cause, one of the most respected journalists in the Chicago area, Walter Jacobson, was just arrested for drunk driving among a bunch of other charges. He's been doing the news in Chicago for over 40 years, and just like that, his credibility's out the window.
Inkara1
Well-Known Member
Well, if people were willing to pay $50 a copy for their local newspaper, then things might be different. We would be providing content directly to the readers, and that would be the service we provide. But people often aren't willing to pay $50. But it costs a lot more than 50¢ to put together a paper when you take into account the cost of the paper, ink, payroll, electricity, Associated Press subscription fees, and so forth. That's where advertisers come into play. If you've ever tried to buy a half-page ad in the paper, you know what kind of money that takes. It's advertisers that make the checks not bounce. They provide a lot more money than the readers, and because of that, the service papers provide isn't news to readers; it's readers to advertisers. The more people that read the paper, the more people see the ad, and the more money the advertisers are willing to part with. Bloody, sensationalistic stories generate more interest from the public, which is why the saying came about that, "if it bleeds it leads." I've used newspapers as an example, but it's the same principle for TV news as well, although in that case they get no money from viewers and therefore every dime they get is from advertisers.
It's interesting how much people complain about bad news going first, and yet how much they tune in.
Of course, the alternative to corporate-financed media is government-financed media. Instead of having an advertiser threatening to pull an ad if the news agency says somethign bad about the company, resulting in the loss of a chunk of revenue, the government can threaten to shut down the paper altogether if it says something the government doesn't like.
It's interesting how much people complain about bad news going first, and yet how much they tune in.
Of course, the alternative to corporate-financed media is government-financed media. Instead of having an advertiser threatening to pull an ad if the news agency says somethign bad about the company, resulting in the loss of a chunk of revenue, the government can threaten to shut down the paper altogether if it says something the government doesn't like.
Well bite my britches. Of all the things I expected to see in the Sunday morning news roundup, this would have fallen just above "Squiggy comes to his senses & see's Bush as a foolish good guy" & right below "Martians have landed & they like us, they really like us." What makes it so out of this world extraordinary is it's spoken from teh mouth of an Los Angeles Times editor. 
Of course, his complaint isn't credible but the fact that he said what he said is a start.
Source
Of course, his complaint isn't credible but the fact that he said what he said is a start.
Source
Blah. I hate this "Don't trust the journalists" trend.
I went to school for Journalism.. In Canada, so there is probably a difference. But, We were taught about responsible journalism. About morals, and when we're crossing the line.
For nearly 4 semesters, they reminded us that it's all about getting the REAL story to the public.
They were honest with us though.. sometimes you'll have a producer or an editor that will want you to go too far for a story, and your job could be on the line. And sometimes you'll find a huge story but you cant break it to the public because it would damage the reputation of an advertiser that's paying your bills..
There's a lot of shadiness in journalism these days, but there will always be trustworthy sources because some of us believe in morals and honesty in the news.
In Canadaian Journalism, that is.
I went to school for Journalism.. In Canada, so there is probably a difference. But, We were taught about responsible journalism. About morals, and when we're crossing the line.
For nearly 4 semesters, they reminded us that it's all about getting the REAL story to the public.
They were honest with us though.. sometimes you'll have a producer or an editor that will want you to go too far for a story, and your job could be on the line. And sometimes you'll find a huge story but you cant break it to the public because it would damage the reputation of an advertiser that's paying your bills..
There's a lot of shadiness in journalism these days, but there will always be trustworthy sources because some of us believe in morals and honesty in the news.
In Canadaian Journalism, that is.
A.B.Normal
New Member
DJB said:
