blackfoot griz
Well-known member
grizliver said:
There is always the Independent!
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Missoulian @ $3.00
- Thread starter Umista
- Start date
There is always the Independent!
Sam A. Blitz
Well-known member
I'm sure Lee has the resources to determine the most profitable price point for its product, but I wouldn't be very happy if I were an ad customer. ..
larry2hersheywilliam
Member
The daily is still $1.50 - must be the Sunday ads that are worth $3.00
blackfoot griz said:
You have a hamster?
GrizGuy
Well-known member
The liberal bias canard is parrot talk by Faux News viewers. Lee doesn't print anything they don't think will make them money - free market capitalism as it is known. If people want groopspeak, I invite them or read the newspapers put out in China. And I'm no apologist for ridiculous writing, as I think my little blog post on the landing page of this forum will attest. If it's still there.
Having said that, yes, the newspaper game is in transition... To what, who knows. If you wanna read content, you should pay for it. You wouldn't eat at a restaurant and leave w/o paying.. Why sports writers should produce for crap wages is beyond me... Then again, I'm not in that game anymore.
Think about the value of the sports news, what other ways you could get that info, the effort and cost of gathering it and dropping it on your stoop. If you think it's not worth it, unsubscribe. Not sure why ranting about it on eGriz is really necessary. If I used that logic, I'd go to foodnetwork.com and bitch about how eGriz has too many move up threads.
Just sayin'.
(
Having said that, yes, the newspaper game is in transition... To what, who knows. If you wanna read content, you should pay for it. You wouldn't eat at a restaurant and leave w/o paying.. Why sports writers should produce for crap wages is beyond me... Then again, I'm not in that game anymore.
Think about the value of the sports news, what other ways you could get that info, the effort and cost of gathering it and dropping it on your stoop. If you think it's not worth it, unsubscribe. Not sure why ranting about it on eGriz is really necessary. If I used that logic, I'd go to foodnetwork.com and bitch about how eGriz has too many move up threads.
Just sayin'.
(
Umista said:
GrizGuy said:
Although I don't disagree with your statements regarding the "newspaper game" itself, and where it's possibly headed, etc, some of your other statements are pure conjecture and merely your opinion. Liberal, at that. Not that I care. But to say that the liberal media bias is s nothing more than a "faux news canard" is simply not accurate. The media overall lean firmly to the left in totality, conservative talk radio notwithstanding. To argue that point is idiotic.
People are willing to pay for content, still. But when that content comes at double the price overnight, and other than a couple new guys that are improving it's reputation, has not done a stellar job in the last few years of appearing unbiased, people are rightly skeptical, if not cynical.
Advance apologies, but I'm about to speak for others. There is a large segment of the Missoula, MT populace that is under-represented in many aspects, and far too quiet in my opinion. We are neither liberal nor staunchly conservative. We believe that Democrats have some good ideas, as do the other guys. We refuse to choose sides based purely on a strict, often arbitrary ideology. We're tired of the status quo, and at the same time tired of being pigeon-holed because we're white, not expressly liberal, and happen to have homes and good jobs and/or businesses, etc, and disagree with much of both sides of the "establishment." All the while living, working, raising kids and planting our roots in a community that is increasingly out of touch with our values.
If I'm not mistaken (which I may well be) you're a dude named Frank that got a degree from the UM J-School and hasn't done too bad. I've read some of your stuff and you appear to have your s*** together as a Pro. Having said that, to chime in here once in awhile and post your thoughts and opinions as though they are represented by fact locally seems like folly on your part and a waste of your time.
This is a sub-tier Division I college football message board. Idiots lurk here, myself included. Posting a thread on eGriz.com that displays your irritation with, and ire toward, a local publication that has shown a clear agenda in the near-past to defame and degrade an institution and accomplished sports program to which you are connected and vested is logical in this setting. It is nothing akin to the analogy that you used of actually signing up to post on foodnetwork.com and using that forum to complain about move-up threads posted on here. That is an absurd analysis, journalistically lazy, and, I would think, below you as a writer.
So the next time you feel like logging in to post and proselytize the ignorant masses, consider that we may respect your journalistic abilities, but would rather that you spare us the spontaneous Op-Ed.
#disenfranchisedwhiteguyfrommt
/rantover
CFallsGriz:
For someone who doesn't want to read spontaneous Op-eds, you seem to be pretty adept at writing your own. And I thoroughly agree that you aren't liberal but I doubt the assertion that you aren't staunchly conservative. As to whether the news media has a liberal bias, in a journalistic world that includes The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Faux News, The National Review, The Weekly Standard, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Post, and conservative talk radio programs that outnumber liberal ones by the score, it is idiotic to summarily assert that there is no debate as to whether today's news media definitively has a liberal bias.
You seem to be a member of that historically much persecuted and maligned group that consists of the hugely disadvantaged prosperous white middle class male with a good job or a good business and a stable family (good for you if you are by the way). But as a member of this demographic, it is also idiotic to play the downtrodden, disenfranchised card.
For someone who doesn't want to read spontaneous Op-eds, you seem to be pretty adept at writing your own. And I thoroughly agree that you aren't liberal but I doubt the assertion that you aren't staunchly conservative. As to whether the news media has a liberal bias, in a journalistic world that includes The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Faux News, The National Review, The Weekly Standard, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Post, and conservative talk radio programs that outnumber liberal ones by the score, it is idiotic to summarily assert that there is no debate as to whether today's news media definitively has a liberal bias.
You seem to be a member of that historically much persecuted and maligned group that consists of the hugely disadvantaged prosperous white middle class male with a good job or a good business and a stable family (good for you if you are by the way). But as a member of this demographic, it is also idiotic to play the downtrodden, disenfranchised card.
Plainsman said:
First of all, I'm not a journalist, and this is not a periodical. People post little diatribes on here on the reg. Mine is no different. Journalists though should be held to a different standard. Second, I don't appreciate being called a liar by someone who knows exactly shit about me, other than what I posted. I don't have a reputation of lying or misrepresenting myself, on the internet or anywhere else for that matter, and expect to be taken at my word; I'm not "staunchly conservative," as I clearly said. Jesus, I said right after that that the Democrats have some good ideas, FFS. Would a staunch conservative say that? Doubt whatever you want smart guy. You're still gonna be wrong. I said I was not conservative, but was tired of being stereotyped in certain circles within this community because I was not expressly liberal. Think about that for a minute. It's funny my views don't fit nice and neatly into a little box for you though. Perfect.
I'm curious also what meaning the phrase "hugely disadvantaged prosperous" might hold. That's a head-scratcher. If it was an attempt at sarcasm it missed the mark by a wide margin. And you follow that up with "good for you if you are." Ok man...
Also, I used the word "disenfranchised." That's largely a values-based idea. You brought in the word "downtrodden," as if I had somehow indicated that I felt that way. Nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing in the post says otherwise. So put that to bed. Defining words is easy on the Innertubes, you should try it. The gist of the post, which you missed, was that if someone wants to post something on here about the local paper that covers something they care about and might be vested in, it makes sense to do so. I was defending that idea. Thanks for the fun segue though.
And if I cared to have a discourse with some dude on the Internet regarding actual bias that exists, I would drop some links here and waste more of my time. :thumb:
GrizGuy
Well-known member
CFallsGriz said:
Please point to evidence of liberal bias that doesn't come from a right-leaning organization. I'm not arguing that your sense that there is liberal bias doesn't exist. I'm telling you, having worked in newsrooms in five states, in markets from 172 to 6, that there isn't a single one that approaches news with an attempt toward bias. Not one. And I know more registered Republican reporters (even in the Boston newsroom I worked in) than those registered as Dems. It's just not part of the thinking when you go out on a story - "OK, so what's our bias here, how do I tweak this?" If that happens, it's a rare exception, not the rule. You live in fear of a competitor beating you to a fact, not how you "spin" something.
GrizGuy
Well-known member
CFallsGriz said:
I'll be sure to consult you before I post in the future to make sure I'm not "wasting my time." IMHO, eGriz would be a lot more enjoyable for those of us who actually care about rational chat, if we did more of that "thoughtful" stuff and less AG/Stevie/Pickle/Whomever bullshit. What's probably "beneath me," and that's not something anyone who knows me would say w/o joking, is hoping that the membership of this forum will soon return to the pre-2005 days when we all just came here to root for the Griz and appreciate what we had.
Just sayin'.
horribilisfan8184
Well-known member
OK. I'll bite.
The leftwing bias of the American mass media is pervasive and quantifiable. Since the 1980s, studies have consistently shown that the professionals who constitute America’s mainstream news media – reporters, editors, anchors, publishers, correspondents, bureau chiefs, and executives at the nation’s major newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks – are preponderantly left-oriented and Democrat. These studies have excluded commentators, editorialists, and opinion columnists – all of whom make it clear that they are giving their opinions and analyses of the news as they view it. Rather, the focus of the research has been on those individuals whose ostensible duty is to impartially and comprehensively present the relevant facts to the readers, listeners, and viewers.
A useful way of gauging the news media’s political and ideological makeup is to examine what the professionals in that industry believe about a wide array of social, ethical, and political issues. For example, research shows that:
Fully 81% of news media professionals favor affirmative action in employment and academia.
Some 71% agree that the “government should work to ensure that everyone has a job.”
75% agree that the “government should work to reduce the income gap between rich and poor.”
56% say that the United States has exploited the nations of the Third World.
57% say that America’s disproportionate consumption of the world’s natural resources is “immoral.”
Nearly half agree that “the very structure of our society causes people to feel alienated.”
Only 30% agree that “private enterprise is fair to workers.”
It is equally illuminating to examine the degree to which members of the news media have supported Democrat or liberal/left candidates and causes, both at the ballot box and with their checkbooks:
In 1964, 94% of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.
In 1968, 86% voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.
In 1972, 81% voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.
In 1976, 81% voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.
In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than for Republican Ronald Reagan.
In 1984, 58% supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.
In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.
It is exceedingly rare to find, even in the most heavily partisan voting districts in the United States, such pronounced imbalances in terms of votes cast or dollars earmarked for one party or the other.
The figures cited above are entirely consistent with how news-media professionals identify themselves in terms of their political party affiliations and ideological leanings:
In a 1988 survey of business reporters, 54% of respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 9% as Republicans.
In a 1992 poll of journalists working for newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, 44% called themselves Democrats, 16% Republicans.
In a 1996 poll of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers, 61% identified themselves as Democrats, 15% as Republicans.
In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, media professionals were nearly 7 times likelier to call themselves Democrats rather than Republicans.
A 2014 study by Indiana University's School of Journalism found that just 7.1% of all journalists identified themselves as Republicans, vs, 28.1% who self-identified as Democrats and 50.2% who said they were Independents.
We see similar ratios in studies where news people are asked to rate themselves on the left-to-right political spectrum:
In a 1981 study of 240 journalists nationwide, 65% identified themselves as liberals, 17% as conservatives.
In a 1983 study of news reporters, executives, and staffers, 32% identified themselves as liberals, 11% as conservatives.
In a 1992 study of more than 1,400 journalists, 44% identified themselves as liberals, 22% as conservatives.
In a 1996 study of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, 61% identified themselves as liberals, 9% as conservatives.
In a 1996 study of 1,037 journalists, the respondents identified themselves as liberals 4 times more frequently than as conservatives. Among journalists working for newspapers with circulations exceeding 50,000, the ratio of liberals to conservatives was 5.4 to 1.
In a 2004 Pew Research Center study of journalists and media executives, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.9 to 1.
In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative.
Bias in the news media manifests itself most powerfully not in the form of outright, intentional lies, but is most often a function of what reporters choose not to tell their audience; i.e., the facts they purposely omit so as to avoid contradicting the political narrative they wish to advance. As media researchers Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo put it: “[F]or every sin of commission…we believe that there are hundreds, and maybe thousands, of sins of omission – cases where a journalist chose facts or stories that only one side of the political spectrum is likely to mention.”
By no means is such activity the result of an organized campaign or conspiracy. Media expert Bernard Goldberg says: “No, we don’t sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we’re going to slant the news. We don’t have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.” Goldberg explains that "a lot of newspeople … got into journalism in the first place" so they could: (a) "change the world and make it a better place," and (b) use their positions as platforms from which to “sho[w] compassion,” which “makes us feel good about ourselves.” Expanding further upon this point, Goldberg quotes researcher Robert Lichter of the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs, who said that journalists increasingly "see themselves as society’s designated saviors," striving to “awaken the national conscience and force public action.” Or as ABC News anchor Peter Jennings admitted to the Boston Globe in July 2001: “Those of us who went into journalism in the ’50s or ’60s, it was sort of a liberal thing to do: Save the world.”
Adapted from: "In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias," by John Perazzo (October 31, 2008). This article is complete with footnotes citing the sources of the various statistics.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=207
Glad I could join the diatribe train.
As footnote, 95% of the 70% liberals in Missoula don't recognize that they are liberal. To them, my graduate student son included, everybody else in Missoula is just stupid.
The leftwing bias of the American mass media is pervasive and quantifiable. Since the 1980s, studies have consistently shown that the professionals who constitute America’s mainstream news media – reporters, editors, anchors, publishers, correspondents, bureau chiefs, and executives at the nation’s major newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks – are preponderantly left-oriented and Democrat. These studies have excluded commentators, editorialists, and opinion columnists – all of whom make it clear that they are giving their opinions and analyses of the news as they view it. Rather, the focus of the research has been on those individuals whose ostensible duty is to impartially and comprehensively present the relevant facts to the readers, listeners, and viewers.
A useful way of gauging the news media’s political and ideological makeup is to examine what the professionals in that industry believe about a wide array of social, ethical, and political issues. For example, research shows that:
Fully 81% of news media professionals favor affirmative action in employment and academia.
Some 71% agree that the “government should work to ensure that everyone has a job.”
75% agree that the “government should work to reduce the income gap between rich and poor.”
56% say that the United States has exploited the nations of the Third World.
57% say that America’s disproportionate consumption of the world’s natural resources is “immoral.”
Nearly half agree that “the very structure of our society causes people to feel alienated.”
Only 30% agree that “private enterprise is fair to workers.”
It is equally illuminating to examine the degree to which members of the news media have supported Democrat or liberal/left candidates and causes, both at the ballot box and with their checkbooks:
In 1964, 94% of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.
In 1968, 86% voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.
In 1972, 81% voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.
In 1976, 81% voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.
In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than for Republican Ronald Reagan.
In 1984, 58% supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.
In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.
It is exceedingly rare to find, even in the most heavily partisan voting districts in the United States, such pronounced imbalances in terms of votes cast or dollars earmarked for one party or the other.
The figures cited above are entirely consistent with how news-media professionals identify themselves in terms of their political party affiliations and ideological leanings:
In a 1988 survey of business reporters, 54% of respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 9% as Republicans.
In a 1992 poll of journalists working for newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, 44% called themselves Democrats, 16% Republicans.
In a 1996 poll of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers, 61% identified themselves as Democrats, 15% as Republicans.
In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, media professionals were nearly 7 times likelier to call themselves Democrats rather than Republicans.
A 2014 study by Indiana University's School of Journalism found that just 7.1% of all journalists identified themselves as Republicans, vs, 28.1% who self-identified as Democrats and 50.2% who said they were Independents.
We see similar ratios in studies where news people are asked to rate themselves on the left-to-right political spectrum:
In a 1981 study of 240 journalists nationwide, 65% identified themselves as liberals, 17% as conservatives.
In a 1983 study of news reporters, executives, and staffers, 32% identified themselves as liberals, 11% as conservatives.
In a 1992 study of more than 1,400 journalists, 44% identified themselves as liberals, 22% as conservatives.
In a 1996 study of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, 61% identified themselves as liberals, 9% as conservatives.
In a 1996 study of 1,037 journalists, the respondents identified themselves as liberals 4 times more frequently than as conservatives. Among journalists working for newspapers with circulations exceeding 50,000, the ratio of liberals to conservatives was 5.4 to 1.
In a 2004 Pew Research Center study of journalists and media executives, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.9 to 1.
In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative.
Bias in the news media manifests itself most powerfully not in the form of outright, intentional lies, but is most often a function of what reporters choose not to tell their audience; i.e., the facts they purposely omit so as to avoid contradicting the political narrative they wish to advance. As media researchers Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo put it: “[F]or every sin of commission…we believe that there are hundreds, and maybe thousands, of sins of omission – cases where a journalist chose facts or stories that only one side of the political spectrum is likely to mention.”
By no means is such activity the result of an organized campaign or conspiracy. Media expert Bernard Goldberg says: “No, we don’t sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we’re going to slant the news. We don’t have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.” Goldberg explains that "a lot of newspeople … got into journalism in the first place" so they could: (a) "change the world and make it a better place," and (b) use their positions as platforms from which to “sho[w] compassion,” which “makes us feel good about ourselves.” Expanding further upon this point, Goldberg quotes researcher Robert Lichter of the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs, who said that journalists increasingly "see themselves as society’s designated saviors," striving to “awaken the national conscience and force public action.” Or as ABC News anchor Peter Jennings admitted to the Boston Globe in July 2001: “Those of us who went into journalism in the ’50s or ’60s, it was sort of a liberal thing to do: Save the world.”
Adapted from: "In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias," by John Perazzo (October 31, 2008). This article is complete with footnotes citing the sources of the various statistics.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=207
Glad I could join the diatribe train.
As footnote, 95% of the 70% liberals in Missoula don't recognize that they are liberal. To them, my graduate student son included, everybody else in Missoula is just stupid.