Stop the Presses?

"It's time to stop the presses" at daily newspapers, and turn them into online-only publications – that's what former L.A. Times staffer Rick Wartzman says. Writing in Business Week this week, he says it's the only way to preserve the mission of journalists everywhere: report the facts on what the powerful are doing, and what's happening to the rest of us, and do it with the skill, professionalism and ethics often missing in the blogosphere. We need journalists, he says, but we don't need newsprint.

Wartzman is not some teenage blogger. He's worked in the heart of print journalism: he's the former Business Editor at the L.A. Times, and for a while he edited the paper's West magazine. Before that he worked as a reporter for the Wall Street Journal. (He's also written a couple of terrific nonfiction books.) He took the Times buyout recently and now is director of the Drucker Institute at Claremont Graduate University. He's not an enthusiast for reading the news on the web; he calls himself "a guy who loves to go out and pick up the three newspapers that land on my front lawn every morning."

But he calls the end of daily newsprint "inescapable" – an economic necessity. The alternative, he says, is simple: daily newspapers will go broke and disappear completely. Denver's Rocky Mountain News has already stopped publishing. The LA Times is owned by The Tribune company, headed by the evil Sam Zell (so much for journalistic "neutrality" online), which is in bankruptcy. Also in bankruptcy: the owners of The Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News and the Minneapolis Star Tribune. The Hearst Corp. will probably close the San Francisco Chronicle sometime soon.

But if newspapers can't survive on newsprint, could they really stay alive, and possibly even thrive, as online-only operations? Wartzman worked out the economics with the current editor of the LA Times, Russ Stanton. "Based on its current level of online ad revenue," Wartzman writes, "the L.A. Times could support a staff of about 275 people at their present salaries," of whom about 150 would work in the newsroom. The good news is that, at this level, "The paper would be a solid moneymaker, boasting a profit margin of about 10%."

The bad news is a newsroom of 150. That may sound big to readers of The Nation, but just a couple of years ago the L.A. Times had more than 1,000 reporters and editors. Today it has about 625. An online L.A. Times would be tiny compared to the glory days.

But is the abandonment of print really necessary for the survival of serious journalism? I can't help remembering when TV arrived in the 1950s, all the experts predicted the end of the Hollywood studios. They asked who would pay to sit in a theater to watch something they could see at home for free? But the studios found ways to compete with television, and today the film industry makes billions of dollars.

The same thing happened when FM radio arrived, and all the experts said that meant the end of AM. But AM radio was re-invented – in part by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk – and now makes a fortune for its owners. E-mail didn't lead to the closing of the Post Office. Cell phones didn't make land lines obsolete. Those of us who love to go out and pick up their newspapers from the front lawn every morning are now hoping something similar will happen with newsprint.

Comments (42)

1. At the risk of getting Mask going again as well as everybody else and turning this into another blog grinding over the pros and cons of Rush Limbaugh, still I would have to ask, regarding Mr. Wiener's article above:

   Would it have been possible - instead of the sentence above:

   ".....But AM radio was re-invented – in part by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk – and now makes a fortune for its owners...."

   to have phrased it as follows instead:

   ".....But AM radio was re-invented – in part by Rush Limbaugh – and now makes a fortune for its owners...."

   The amazing thing here is that Mr. Wiener identifies the actual issue regarding AM radio back then... that it was being overtaken by FM radio (why would someone listen to music on an AM station when FM stations provided better sound quality and stereo?).

   This actual issue is one that libs blow past over and over again when promoting that we need the "Fairness Doctrine" back......

   Libs would have you believe the content on AM Radio now is not "fair"... they portray that it was "fair" before when we had the "Fairness Doctrine", that all kinds of "diverse" comment was heard.

   But music was what was heard on AM radio back then, not great, weighty discussion. Stations would not bother putting political or ideological content on the radio because of the need to then go out and find an opposing viewpoint, and put that viewpoint on the air regardless of whether people were listening to it or not.

   So there was no political content, and people were not listening to the music on AM either, anymore.

   What is good about this article is that it shows the ability of libs to contradict themselves. Mr. Wiener inadvertantly brought into his article content which contradicts lib positions promoted in other contexts.

   Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 12:45pm

2. An enormous downside to newspapers going online-only would be the incredible impact on communities and geographic regions in which being "wired" is a demographic minority or non-existent trend. This situation describes regions where people are not well-to-do, regions where people are not primarily white, and regions where people are older than 45 or 50 years of age. In particular, communities of color face a generational problem with online-only news if the their general trend towards not getting "wired" continues in that the only news their kids will ever see from day one will be TV news and often not the paid-cable variety. Likewise, much of the internal US which is suburban or rural in character is not at all saturated with the broadband DSL subscriptions that correspond to online news consumers, and so people in these regions would get less and less non-TV news.

   Posted by syfriendly at 03/12/2009 @ 1:10pm

3. SJCHR....Limbaugh's irrelevant (or "irrational" to quote Newt Gingrich).

   Actually lots of OTHER factors besides talk/politics played to AM.

   For one thing FM is better sound quality, so naturally people preferred to hear music over it, than AM. AM however is fine for verbal audio ("talking"), with the voices still clear and distinct.

   The rise of Talk Radio of the conservative bent also coincided with mass buy-ups of the stations (Clear Channel for one) and the fact they often would "cross-program" (there may be another term) where by they would put Limbaugh on one station in one town...up against....Limbaugh on another station in another town nearby, that they owned.

   Ergo, the national numbers were high (no matter which station was listened to) and those numbers could be fed to the national advertisers, which trickled down to the local advertisers. ("Hey, Xerox loves Rush and makes tons of money off him...Bob's Toyota in Taylortown will too!")

   Then guys like SJCHER (led of course by Rush) claim "Liberal radio has been tried, it doesn't work, the people want conservative radio only on every channel!"...and never note the subtleties....which they never doo, heheh.

   Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 1:16pm

4. BTW, Wartzmann's right....as Egon said 25 years ago "print is dead".

   Rocky Mt News just the first sign. And NO, it's not because "they're liberal"...it's because it's now too expensive to DELIVERY the paper in some cases (I heard a $10 figure for each delivery).

   It's because advertisers see better places for their money....the Internet, TV, and yes...radio.

   Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 1:18pm

5. As a columnist for the Toronto Star Canada's biggest daily -- and as its former media critic -- I can agree with many of Wiener's points. However I fail to see how he believes that an editorial staff of 150 (which would presumably include editors, shooters, graphics people, tech support etc. all on different shifts) could adequately cover major metro areas the way staffs of 500 can.

   The beauty of a serious large circ paper which reports on everything from the courts to the local city halls is that there is real coverage of all the issues that affect its audience.

   NO WAY that happens with such small editorial contingents.

   Posted by AntoniaZ at 03/12/2009 @ 1:20pm

6. Some of those things that you are saying aren't going to happen you need to just give time. Land lines are losing popularity. Many people no longer have land lines. So if the course continues with youth relying on cell phones instead of land lines does it not follow that it will eventually die?

   Same with the post office. The day you can email a package, you no longer need the mail. Again the mail system IS dying because of email there are just services that email can't quite provide yet. When you can get those services through someone else you can be guaranteed mail will die too.

   Print news is going to go out of business too. As is shown you can run a much smaller much more sleek operation and save millions if you are simply putting your content online instead of sending out daily newspapers.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/12/2009 @ 1:39pm

7. Also it's funny for a publication that posts about saving the earth to post also about saving print journalism, a HUGE paper user when you could easily switch to digital with no loss of information.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/12/2009 @ 1:40pm

8. Mask,

   A breathtaking post from you, as always:

   I kind of liked the "for one thing" as you instruct me about how the sound quality is better on FM.

   But of course, I had already mentioned that. So it would be, "To repeat what you said", or "In agreement with your remark about FM sound", or something like that.

   You mention how the rise of Talk Radio corresponded with the mass buy-up of stations. However, if the Fairness Doctrine had been in place, that would not have mattered, there would not have been political content/opinion on AM radio.

   So the "mass buy up" is irrelevant.

   You talk about how I (after being led by Rush) "claim" that liberal radio has been tried and it hasn't worked.

   Um, that is not up to me to make any claim on that, and I do not remember doing that before (although if I have you will pull up my comment and post it back) but it doesn't matter - that is what the ratings show. Thus, liberal radio not "working" is not something anybody needs to claim.

   The ratings are what they are.

   It is now 3:20 pm. Fortunately for me I just checked back and noticed your post a few minutes ago, AND fortunately for me it is after 3:00 PM EDT, SO Rush was finished with his show and available to quickly feed me the reply I am posting back to you.

   I always check with Rush first before replying to you, and that is why I don't always get right back to you, because Rush is not always immediately available.

   Sometimes he is eating steaks at Ruths Chris, sometimes he is on the radio, and then sometimes he is instructing some other Dittohead and can not get with me right away.

   Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 2:24pm

9. Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 2:24pm

   First, if the Fairness Doctrine had been in place, Rush would have still be able to be on the air....probably so would Hannity following him and Levin following him. It just wouldn't be from 6am until 6am with opinions that make Sam Brownback look like a moderate.

   Second, Rush is "irrational"...Newt said so. So I'd stop worrying about him.

   Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 3:13pm

10. Mask,

    Excellent post, as always.

    Rush and Hannity and Levin, etc would have been on the air... because you declare so.

    What liberals would have also been on the air? It would have been required, so who would they have been?

    How would their ratings have been?

    If the ratings of the liberals was not so great, how many stations would have been willing to absorb the loss in advertising revenue resulting from that?

    Since they all would have been willing to do that, since you say Rush, Hannity, etc would have been on the air and so the libs would have been on the air, HOW would the stations have dealt with the loss of revenue? Remember, radio stations are businesses, or parts of businesses, and those things matter in businesses, so please put your business expertise to work and explain to me from a business standpoint how this would have been dealt with.

    (advertising revenue is based on expected ratings - that is why the networks can charge so much for the Super Bowl ads and some companies willingly pay those amounts)

    So, as I said, you declare that Rush, Hannity, et. al would have been on the air (in spite of what I have just mentioned, or by ignoring the things I mentioned that would have prevented that).... and I have been on The Nation blogs long enough to know that if a lib says something is so, by golly it is so....a lib statement is self contained proof, accepted anywhere in liberal land.

    (similar to other proof such as "Saddam was no threat", or "The wealthy pay no tax", or "Bush lied, thousands died" , etc etc etc).

    As far as worrying about Rush, what made you think I was worried about Rush. As I said, I check with him before any post I make here on The Nation, so he allieviates any worry I have when we talk.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 4:29pm

11. Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 4:29pm

    And as I mentioned Rush benefitted from a corporate expansion of network radio, where he was put up against...himself...on neighboring channels and then claimed he "destroyed the competition".

    You wouldn't know that because you've never, ever questioned anything he's said...nor looked at anything other than the sources Rush wants you to look at, or figure "that's just liberal propaganda, because Rush is always right."

    Which is fine...your influence is relative to his and your thoughts are of the same quality...

    and as (again...because it's just fun) NEWT GINGRICH would say of you...you're "irrational".

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 6:46pm

12. And we go into a rope-a-dope loop de loop all night long, with Mask bobbing and weaving....

    Since we know that lib talk shows did not draw an audience....

    And we know that radio station revenue would be down if they played the lib talk shows anyway, because they could not charge as much for advertising during the times those shows were on.....

    And we know that in order for stations to carry Rush, etc., with the Fairness Doctrine in effect the stations would have had to carry the lib talk shows, otherwise they could not carry Rush.....

    And we know this is so because this is what the law was....

    And we know the law was the law no matter who owned what stations....

    We also know that Mask has not explained how radio stations would have successfully continued in business under these circumstances.

    We know Mask is never going to explain this.

    We know Mask says that I am accepting Rush's word on this....

    But we also know that Mask can not prove the argument wrong because if Mask could Mask would....

    We know Mask can't and Mask won't.....

    And we also know Mask will post back and say for the umpteeth millionth zillionth time that I am just repeating what Rush say and that I only go or do or say or read what Rush says to read, etc. ....

    And we know Mask will find something some Conservative said negative about Rush......

    And so the loop de loop and rope-a-dope and bobbing and weaving will begin anew.

    These back-and-forths are amusing, and they do help discredit liberalism/progressivism, and so it is fun to get involved sometimes and run around in circles with Mask now and then.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 7:15pm

13. Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 7:15pm

    Hope you enjoyed yourself.....pretty good `stuff'...I think you got a better handle on MASK than even his wife or mother.

    Posted by Happy at 03/12/2009 @ 7:40pm

14. I didn't hear anything about the National Enquirer going out of business.... How about OK Magazine?...Or the World News Weekly?

    The problem isn't with Journalists or the Newspaper business, it's the American public.

    This country is becoming overrun by goons, philistines and self-absorbed morons addicted to reality tv shows, corporate junkfood as well as junk products, twittering, cell phones and etc...

    I'm sorry, but I can't stand idiots, with no manners, who spend their whole life on the f*cking phone, lumbering numbly through their surroundings.

    Think about it, there is a huge percentage of the US population that doesn't even vote; Not out of protest either, most of these non-voters just don't care.

    Posted by koroviev at 03/13/2009 @ 01:44am

15. We also know that Mask has not explained how radio stations would have successfully continued in business under these circumstances.----Posted by sjchermak at 03/12/2009 @ 7:15pm

    Yes, if one accepts Rush's theory that "liberal shows never succeed"...which is based on exactly what I said, the fact that he wasn't programmed to go up against liberal shows. He was programmed to go up against ...himself...on other stations that cross-marketed.

    Rush's main "competition" for years was...Rush.

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 07:52am

16. I think you got a better handle on MASK than even his wife or mother.----Posted by Happy at 03/12/2009 @ 7:40pm

    HAPPY DOES seem to like to bring my family into things, doesn't he?

    "...his wife looks like one of them dogs Michael Vick keeps (but not for long) :-)"----Posted by HAPPY 10/11/2007 @ 12:17am

    Yes, he was referring to me and my wife.

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 07:54am

17. Mask,

    On the other hand, liberal radio shows got lousy ratings whenever they were broadcast.

    Thus the question did not have to do with ratings of liberal shows as they were "up against" Rush.

    It was just that the ratings were lousy, period.

    And... if a radio station was required to broadcast a liberal talk show to counterbalance a Conservative, be it Rush or whoever, they obviously would not be on at the same time but different times.

    And liberal shows have a track record of lousy ratings regardless of when they were broadcast or what was happening on other stations.

    So we aren't talking... or shouldn't be talking... about Rush's "competition"... we are just talking... or should be.. about the lousy ratings lib programs got...

    So Mask, why are we talking about "competing against Rush", since that is irrelevant to the topic?

    Is it because you do not want to answer the question of how radio stations would have stayed in business if they had to broadcast shows that got them low advertising revenue?

    I suppose Obama would say now that they should be required to broadcast both, and if they otherwise can not financially keep afloat, the stations should get a stimulus check, and be government supported.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/13/2009 @ 08:39am

18. Thus the question did not have to do with ratings of liberal shows as they were "up against" Rush.

    It was just that the ratings were lousy, period----Posted by sjchermak at 03/13/2009 @ 08:39am

    Okay, where did you get that information from?

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 09:50am

19. BTW, if you care or dare to read it, this will prove interesting-

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf

    Also, why is it that only 28% of the country believed that Bush was a great President or 10% believe that global warming is completely a hoax (Fox News poll)....

    but somehow a "vast majority" of radio listeners are so enamored of listening to guys like RL and Sean Hannity who agree with that and thus "wouldn't listen" to a progressive host?

    If it's "market demand"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 09:58am

20. Mask,

    Excellent post.. You win on all points, as always.

    I read your article. I could play the same game you libs play, and mention that your article comes from a "progressive" source, and is thus invalid.

    Here is a different view, one YOU will declare invalid:

    Liberal Talk Radio's Very Bad Week

    Air America's rock-bottom ratings offer a valuable lesson: attempting to fill the left's void of ideas with F-words and ad hominem attacks will not fool the listeners for long.

    April 9, 2008 - by Steve Gill

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ liberal-talk-radios-very-bad-week/

    (there may be spaces in the link that need to be removed)

    Your article is disturbing in a number of ways:

    1. Did you notice that in the charts showing data market by market or station by station, there is a column for "conservative" and the second column showing "progressive".

    What's with this? Why not the word "liberal"? Do I see an attempt to skew things here by the authors of your article, in an attempt to make the "liberal" more appealing or middle of the road than it really is? Does this indicate some underlying bias in the article by the authors?

    2. The remedies in your article call for all the various types of more stringent control in licensing, ownership, etc., in order to maintain "balance".

    But since when is it up to the government to "police" the airwaves to maintain political "balance"?

    These are public airwaves for free speech in a free society. At some point it is none of the government's business to be regulating or controlling free speech in a free society to steer discourse to some bureaucrat's idea of "public interest".

    Government control should only be for some orderly adminstration of frequency allocation here and in the world.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/13/2009 @ 11:01am

21. Mask,

    To continue my post - your article goes too far towards government control of airwave content. Who decides what is in the public interest and what is not? At what point does this open up the possibliity of censorship or control to achieve political objectives?

    Obviously, there needs to be a way to keep obscene content or hate off of the air, but your "article", clearly done by a leftist think-tank, goes way beyond that and is just an attempt by the left to level the playing field since the left has been unable to compete in the marketplace or in discourse.

    3. It is also curious that your article solely concentrates on "talk radio" and conservative versus "progressive" content on radio. There is no discussion of content of newspapers, or television news, and whether there is any political imbalance in those areas. If there is an article by a think-tank that is concerned about "political saturation" of the airwaves or "imbalance", then would it not have been appropriate to have considered ALL the media that the public partakes of, and not just one segment?

    Should television networks have their news operations scrutinized to determine if there is balance in how the news is presented, and have the successful achievement of balance be a pre-requisite for the affiliates of that network to qualify for license renewal?

    If you are for the one (the similar type stuff that is in the article that you promote), then you would have to be for the other, else you would be a hypocrite who is trying to steer radio towards "progressivism" while remaining unconcerned about the "progressive" bias in televison news.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/13/2009 @ 11:09am

22. Posted by sjchermak at 03/13/2009 @ 11:01am

    1. I did notice that you only want to discuss how they label the stations, and not their findings.

    2. "But since when is it up to the government to "police" the airwaves to maintain political "balance"?"

    Since 1969 and a 8-0 Supreme Court ruling called "Red Lion Broadcasting v FCC".

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 11:13am

23. Mask,

    I told you I knew what the "findings" (by a biased organization) were - that big bad "conservative" ownership has restricted the ability of "progressive" (why not "liberal") voices to be heard and that we "need" more government control to insure that stations are meeting their licensing requirements to broadcast in the "public interest" (which is to make sure there is more liberal content in radio).

    When you noticed things, you also noticed but did not comment on how I asked why was there no concern from your think tank about balance in the television media news (yes I know there is Fox News now) or in the newspaper?

    You overlook, I am sure, that the preponderance of television news is biased left, even with Fox news around. And you would really overlook the question of why Fox news has become popular (Answer:because it is not biased left)

    My "since when" question was not to find a specific ruling from you, but it was a rhetorical question.

    I do not believe it is a good idea that the government can be too agressive or have too much power in determining the award of or continuation of a license based on an evaluation of whether the broadcaster is operating in the "public interest". What defines public interest?

    You really want that up to the whims of government bureaucrats who may be politically biased? (unfortunately, in this case your answer is probably YES!).

    It is clear here through your think tank article that this concern for the public interest IS being used as a vehicle to try and alter broadcasting based on one group's ideology, given the "concern" in one arena (radio) and lack of concern about others (television and newspaper).

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/13/2009 @ 12:13pm

24. Mask,

    Television and newspapers have always "flown under the radar" on this issue, because the news is supposedly straight news, and thus was never under any "fairness" concern even when there was a Fairness Doctrine.

    That is where the bizzare twist with this is. The Fairness Doctrine regulated content outside of the news.

    But with talk radio, everybody knows that a given show represents a certain ideology, in most cases, with no attempt to hide what the show host or hosts believe and no effort to pass off the discussion or opinion on those shows as straight news.

    But with the regular mainstream television news and with the newspaper, content that is supposedly straight news is often presented in a biaed or distorted manner, not through any conspiracy by the newspeople to do this, but because of their ideology that causes them to lean ways they may not be consciously aware of themselves.

    Thus biased news is passed off (and absorbed by some of the population) as straight news. Read the book BIAS by Bernard Goldberg.

    So you on the left are trying to force "Fairness" in an arena where people are aware of what they are listening to, and you are trying to do this through government control, by opinionated and biased people -- while at the same time not advocating this same level of control be applied to content that is biased but passed off to the public as straight news content.

    In case you were wondering, this is hypocritical and is wrong. I am sure you were not wondering, and I am sure I am just venting and probably my post is a complete waste of time.

    You may actually see the merits of what I am saying, but you will never admit it.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/13/2009 @ 12:22pm

25. "I told you I knew what the "findings" (by a biased organization)"---Posted by sjchermak at 03/13/2009 @ 12:13pm

    And then two posts and paragraphs about "biased media".....hmmmm????

    "If a conservative cites an article in the public domain as support for a point being made, it very frequently will be "rejected" by a lib just because it comes from a conservative source.

    That fascinates me - just where do you libs think that a conservative's sources are going to come from? I don't see many conservatives rejecting lib ideas just because the lib quotes a lib source. They will argue why the idea itself falls short."----Posted by sjchermak at 03/13/2009 @ 09:33am

    GOP Gov Likens Obama Policies to Zimbabwe's posted by John Nichols

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 12:41pm

26. BTW, the Court decisions indicated the standard (set since the founding of the FCC) that broadcast was based on the licensing of PUBLIC airwaves....call it "Roosevelt Radio Socialism" if you like, that's been the paradigm since radio broadcasting was established in the early 30s.

    Ergo, it did not apply to newspapers.

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 12:49pm

27. Mask,

    Not to put words in your mouth, but the impression I get from your posts (to put it it my own words) is that you (and certainly most others on the left as well) do not like the dominance of conservatives on radio, you claim it is unfair and the result of unfair situations that can, should be and probably by Obama will be "remedied" by proper government control of the airwaves.

    This of course while ignoring that the circumstances are out of balance in the other direction in other media in this country, a situation which in effect "levels the playing field", which the left does not concede to be the case.

    If one steps back and looks at this from a larger perspective, many on the left think things are not "fair" with regard to radio. However, you quote the following statistics above "..... only 28% of the country believed that Bush was a great President or 10% believe that global warming is completely a hoax (Fox News poll)..."

    Since this is the case, and if you say it is so, then it is so, then why do you care what is or is not on the radio?

    The preponderance of Conservatives on radio did not prevent Obama from being elected, nor did it prevent Democrats from capturing Congress. According to you, most in this country are more in line with your way of thinking.

    So your message is getting out. Since it is getting out, what exactly is unfair about the situation regarding radio?

    Why is it necessary for "progressives" to concern themselves with what is on radio?

    Why do you want the power of government to regulate what is on radio?

    What is the agenda here?

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/13/2009 @ 5:43pm

28. "daily newspapers will go broke and disappear completely."

    posted by Jon Wiener on 03/12/2009 @ 12:21pm

    I will mourn their passing.

    So many memories. So much history. No more parents cutting out pictures of their kids, etc.

    However, just as it is with Route 66, there will be sweet remnants.

    Gonna save alot of trees though.

    Posted by Benchrest at 03/13/2009 @ 8:48pm

29. Posted by sjchermak at 03/13/2009 @ 5:43pm

    Actually, SJ...I LIKE having Rush on the air and want him to speak and speak and speak and speak...never go off the air, nor moderate his views and language one bit...

    and (as discussed in past weeks) I like having him be the "face" of the Republican Party and his views, on glboal warming ("It's a hoax") which only 10% of America believes (Fox News poll) and his opinon on George W. Bush which only 28-30% of America shares, kept on the air...

    You should too...but I bet such a thing actually worries you.

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2009 @ 07:29am

30. Hey Mask,

    But what about answering the questions about why the left is warped up about radio not being fair or why elements of the left want the "Fairness Doctrine" back, in light of the fact that obviously all thought is getting out and in your case, being successfully promoted given that Obama won the presidency and Democrats control Congress now?

    In other words, what is the left worried about since the left's message is in the public domain? Is there more agenda behind this than you will admit to?

    By the way, you may want to slow down a little bit on promoting the "only" 10% "believing global warming is a hoax".

    Your argument is losing steam, or running out of gas, as it were.

    But Frosty Zoom says the Sun is free, so maybe you can use the Sun to power some of your B.S.

    ========

    US still skeptical about global warming: survey http://www.google.com/hostednews /afp/article/ALeqM5gTDzuiJn1I3sT 4iOWEn9b1HF1g5Q

    (link may contain spaces that need to be taken out)

    "WASHINGTON (AFP) -- More Americans than at any time in the past decade believe that the seriousness of global warming is being exaggerated, a Gallup poll showed Thursday.

    Forty-one percent of Americans told Gallup pollsters that they are doubtful that global warming is as serious as the mainstream media are reporting, putting public skepticism about the hot-button issue at the highest level recorded by Gallup in more than a decade."

    "And a record high 16 percent of Americans told Gallup pollsters that they believe the effects of global warming "will never occur.""

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/14/2009 @ 10:59am

31. The switch to online only newspapers will be like other trends- sporadic and incomplete. In more rural areas, local papers will continue to thrive in print. In large cities, the online versions may take over completely. Nonetheless, there will be advantages and disadvantages to this trend.

    I think the biggest downside to this will be the lack of serious coverage by professional organizations. This problem will make it easier for companies and government to get away with fraud etc.

    The biggest advantage will come from access. It will be easier for those with access to have information from around the globe.

    Yet, in the aggregate, will the downsides outweigh the upsides? I have my doubts.

    Posted by erazma at 03/14/2009 @ 7:21pm

32. Posted by sjchermak at 03/14/2009 @ 10:59am

    Wow...you're UP to 16%?!!?!?

    I guess you and Rush ARE "mainstream America", huh?

    Posted by Mask at 03/16/2009 @ 10:22am

33. Mask,

    Actually, the number is 41% that think it is overhyped.

    Which you already know because you are able to read.

    As you know, there are a lot of components to that issue (global warming) and it is not now and never was a hard and fast argument that it is or is not happening - although some do argue that, of course. There are also arguments about whether it is or is not going to be harmful, whether it is or is not cyclical or man - made, whether we really know if it is happening or not, whether the data and assumptions are rock solid or faulty, etc, whether all scientists are in consensus, etc.

    With some libs such as Algore declaring it is absolute and the planet is in peril in 10 years if we do not stop dead in our tracks and apply all the ideas libs have, and apply them now.

    And with you running around gloating and boasting that John McCain said there was global warming, and with you trying to place bets with Conservatives on this site as to whether the Republican nomninee in 2012 will do the same thing.

    But it does appear the global warming case is coming unwound a wee little bit (or maybe more than a wee little bit). You, of course, will not admit this as you bob and weave around the issue.

    Unfortunately, in cyberspace like this, without the ability to argue things face to face or debate in front of others, you can successfully bob and weave out of any situation where you had previously put your foot in your mouth, so to speak.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/16/2009 @ 11:08am

34. Posted by sjchermak at 03/16/2009 @ 11:08am

    But SJ, Rush doesn't say it's "over-hyped"...he says it doesn't EXIST, total hoax.

    Now, how many on-board for that?

    Again, we agree. We BOTH want Rush and his policy views (Dubya a great President, GW a hoax, want Obama to fail) to be the image of the Republican Party....

    uh, right?

    Posted by Mask at 03/16/2009 @ 11:55am

35. Mask,

    Why have you been hyping a 10% percentage when it is 16% and growing?

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/16/2009 @ 2:47pm

36. Posted by sjchermak at 03/16/2009 @ 2:47pm

    Why are you celebrating a 16% number...when it's less than even Dick Cheney's approvals?...LOL

    BTW, you figure the 2012 GOP nominee is going to come out in opposition to McCain's position?

    Oh, wait, you probably still think it's going to be Prom Queen Granny, don't you?

    ROFL!

    Posted by Mask at 03/16/2009 @ 3:24pm

37. As has been mentioned before, the public airwaves are public, limited & licensed and therefore should be subject to a Fairness Doctrine. Newspapers, on the other hand, are not theoretically a limited phenomena. Anyone can publish as many of them as they want to without a license. Also, the contention that the print media are generally left-leaning is hogwash.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 03/16/2009 @ 4:35pm

38. I like the Fairness Doctrine well enough, but it's no substitute for trust-busting and for abolishing the horrible Telecommunications Act of 1996.

    The problem of "fairness," from a conservative point of view, is easily solved by letting centrists debate right wingers and by labeling the former "liberal." The corporate media, and to a depressing degree NPR and PBS as well, have been playing this trick for decades, and they're still at it today.

    The Fairness Doctrine was designed for a bygone era, the time when there were only a few major TV networks and it was important for each one to have internal diversity. Now, we have many more networks, and each network has its own private concept of "diversity." Sadly, this concept tends generally to be both narrow and plutocratic. The reason is that the large number of channels disguises the small number of owners. The reason for this consolidation of ownership is the Telecommunications Act, a wretched law founded on the principle that there is nothing wrong with unregulated monopoly.

    The only real competition comes from real diversity. You don't get that from Clear Channel's empire.

    There are of course two solutions to the problem of unregulated monopoly or (more accurately) unregulated oligopoly. One is to regulate it. The other is to bust it up and to reduce the media giants to a more manageable size. In this case, I'm for busting up the oligopoly and for restoring the media-ownership laws that formerly made media empires illegal and honored our country's motto: "E pluribus unum." Alas, the task of empire-busting requires more courage than we are likely to find in the federal government today.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 03/17/2009 @ 07:12am

39. Posted by JakobFabian at 03/17/2009 @ 07:12am

    If there's no Fairness Doctrine, and it's merely breaking up Clear Channel...

    will the Right object?

    (Answer?--Yes, because Rush and Sean and Glenn and Mark and Laura will object. They'll shift gears quickly and start claiming that "Breaking up Clear Channel is 'backdoor Fairness Doctrine'!" to protect their monopoly...and then expect the ditto-heads, Hannitized, Beck-heads, etc. to completely forget the FD "censorship" angle!)

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 07:40am

40. Unanswered from the latest postings by Mask and JakobFabian is the basic question - what exactly is the problem?

    Obama was elected President, the Democrats are in control of Congress, there is amongst all the various media a wide variety of opinion in the public domain these days. It would be impossible for someone to make a credible case that segments of opinion are being unfairly shut out of the public domain.

    I don't know who can claim their voice is not being heard.

    And yet, still, over and over again, we either "need" the Fairness Doctrine, or we "need" to "break up" Clear Channel and trust bust, or whatever.

    What for? Why do we need to DO anything?

    What exactly is the problem? How are things "unfair" if all voices are heard in the public domain? How can the left claim things are unfair towards the left when a strident leftist has been elected President?

    And as always is the case, here comes Mask with the reverse-convoluted "assumptions" about how the Right and the "Ditto Heads" will react if Clear Channel is "broken up" in the attempts by Mask to show how it is the Right who is wrong about all this!

    Mask will portray that this is my obsession but it obviously is not. Mask and JakobFabian are grinding this around indepenedent of any response to me, and even Mask's obsession about this is not unique because leftists have been carping about how things are "unfair" for some time now.

    But the question is never answered (at least not by Mask) just what is the problem? How is your voice not being heard?

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/17/2009 @ 10:14am

41. Posted by sjchermak at 03/17/2009 @ 10:14am

    Okay, SJ...I won't make an assumption...

    DO you have a problem if Clear Channel is "broken up" into small independent broadcasting companies?

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 10:42am

42. Mask,

    I have not paid much attention over the years about who Clear Channel is. I do not work in the broadcasting industry or in any industry even related to broadcasting, thus I know little or nothing about the subject and do not know enough to render an opinion.

    I DO know that there are a wide varitey of voices and opinions out in the public domain, out there in many different ways, and the public domain is evolving at a rapid pace with the coming of the Internet.

    I DO know that nobody's opinion has been silenced in the public domain.

    I DO know there is no "unfairness" in the public domain, if all voices are heard, which they are.

    INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE can have their own blogs and websites now, often at no cost, and viewable/accessable by all.

    And I also know that the former Soldier for Stroger, the first product of the Cook County and Chicago machines to rise to the Presidency, Barack Obama, was able to convince the population to put him in that office.

    What I DON'T know, because you will not answer the question, is why those who are pro-Obama, pro-left, pro-Democrat, are the ones screaming that things are "unfair" in the public domain, and that we need "Fairness Doctrine" and "Trust Busting", etc.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/17/2009 @ 10:59am