Comments on: An Open Letter to Journalists http://puretwaddle.gijv.com/2009/07/an-open-letter-to-journalists/ It is what it is Wed, 06 Apr 2011 01:18:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: admin http://puretwaddle.gijv.com/2009/07/an-open-letter-to-journalists/comment-page-1/#comment-81 admin Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:30:13 +0000 http://puretwaddle.gijv.com/?p=251#comment-81 I actually wrote this rant in response to the Washington Post's web page which, for three consecutive days, had nothing on the front page except articles about Sotomayor's hearing. During that same time I caught a glimpse of CNN and Fox on telly and the were talking about the same BS except with less content and more bias. I'm going to have a hard time making rent this month and all they can talk about is how goddamn funny Al Franken is in the Senate. I actually wrote this rant in response to the Washington Post’s web page which, for three consecutive days, had nothing on the front page except articles about Sotomayor’s hearing. During that same time I caught a glimpse of CNN and Fox on telly and the were talking about the same BS except with less content and more bias. I’m going to have a hard time making rent this month and all they can talk about is how goddamn funny Al Franken is in the Senate.

]]> By: Cribbster http://puretwaddle.gijv.com/2009/07/an-open-letter-to-journalists/comment-page-1/#comment-79 Cribbster Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:34:18 +0000 http://puretwaddle.gijv.com/?p=251#comment-79 You're not giving enough credit where it's due. Plenty of this stuff has been in The New York Times at one point or another. I'm pretty sure they've had a story in there everyday about Iran. China, perhaps not, but that's not the story right now. But, for the most part, all this stuff is being covered. You have to seek it out. Is it not ironic that in a letter to journalists about their shortcomings you ask what's going on with violence in Afghanistan -- based on an article you read in The Economist? The Economist is as much a part of the American media as the British media. (In fact, they might have more offices here if I recall correctly.) As for Iraq, yes, there's been less coverage. But that's a money issue. It's extraordinarily expensive to cover Iraq. I read the amount The New York Times spent per month a year ago in a Vanity Fair story a few months back. I don't remember the amount, but it was astounding. At a time when newspapers don't have enough resources to cover the home front, spending money on journalists in Iraq isn't -- and should not -- be a priority. A paper's primary concern should be its own backyard (provided it's not The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal). What you're criticizing is the national conversation, not media coverage. And people create the national conversation, not the media. All of it, all your answers, are there, usually on the inside pages of The Times or any of them Big Three papers. They might not be on A1, but if you open and scan the inside, shit's all there. And while I might sound like an apologist, I'm certainly not. I think newspapers are pretty much dead. I basically quit them last year. But I routinely hear from a subset of newspaper readers that the reason they're dying is because they're becoming less substantial. And that's completely false. Newspapers have been dying a slow death for a good number of years -- even when they were thick, substantial and ascendant. And last point: A good number of questions you're asking don't have black/white answers. I saw a report a week or two ago that said federal officials weren't sure the stimulus package was working, but they believed state and municipal governments weren't spending it fast enough. Also, here's a link (today) to a bunch of stories that answer some of your questions: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.html And that's just one day's coverage! You’re not giving enough credit where it’s due. Plenty of this stuff has been in The New York Times at one point or another. I’m pretty sure they’ve had a story in there everyday about Iran. China, perhaps not, but that’s not the story right now. But, for the most part, all this stuff is being covered. You have to seek it out. Is it not ironic that in a letter to journalists about their shortcomings you ask what’s going on with violence in Afghanistan — based on an article you read in The Economist? The Economist is as much a part of the American media as the British media. (In fact, they might have more offices here if I recall correctly.)

As for Iraq, yes, there’s been less coverage. But that’s a money issue. It’s extraordinarily expensive to cover Iraq. I read the amount The New York Times spent per month a year ago in a Vanity Fair story a few months back. I don’t remember the amount, but it was astounding. At a time when newspapers don’t have enough resources to cover the home front, spending money on journalists in Iraq isn’t — and should not — be a priority. A paper’s primary concern should be its own backyard (provided it’s not The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal).

What you’re criticizing is the national conversation, not media coverage. And people create the national conversation, not the media. All of it, all your answers, are there, usually on the inside pages of The Times or any of them Big Three papers. They might not be on A1, but if you open and scan the inside, shit’s all there.

And while I might sound like an apologist, I’m certainly not. I think newspapers are pretty much dead. I basically quit them last year. But I routinely hear from a subset of newspaper readers that the reason they’re dying is because they’re becoming less substantial. And that’s completely false. Newspapers have been dying a slow death for a good number of years — even when they were thick, substantial and ascendant.

And last point: A good number of questions you’re asking don’t have black/white answers. I saw a report a week or two ago that said federal officials weren’t sure the stimulus package was working, but they believed state and municipal governments weren’t spending it fast enough.

Also, here’s a link (today) to a bunch of stories that answer some of your questions:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.html

And that’s just one day’s coverage!

]]>