Patriot_in_NY

It's anicdotal..... and not just exclusive to the times. Many Americans are turning to alternative news outlets because they no longer trust traditional MSM outlets (particularly print).

Allowing stuff like this in doesn't help;


That's turned a lot of people off, particularly when the shady dealing behind it were exposed.

Granted, most of there troble is due to a *****ty business plan over the last decade or two. Their eroding reputation doesn't help.

Fogbuster

No, you were talking about moi, that I "didn't make sense". Holy meltdowns, Batman!! The axe is falling AGAIN!!!

Am keeping up, you can trust me on that, in particular.


//

__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."

Wildo7

Um no. I was responding to this criticism:

Saying that I was trying to read your mind by saying that you think the print media is going extinct because of a leftist slant. Again, try and keep up.

Wildo7

So no evidence then? Conservatives have been complaining about this bias since before I can remember.

Fogbuster

Don't see the distinction, but whatever.


//

__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."

Wildo7

Go back and read then. The point is what Tanked said "didn't make any sense," I never said that about your post. Not a difficult distinction to grasp.

Patriot_in_NY

No, I said anicdotal. It's OLD NEWS that credibility in MSM is a HUGE ISSUE (for both sides in some issues).

It has HURT the newspaper industry harder so far, but it is certainly part of the issue. When the people that you depend on to buy your stuff don't trust you, it's BAD FOR BUSINESS. You'll notice the number of respondants that "believe nothing" numbers, NYT 14% was the highest. Yeah, these are old numbers, but still. HERE is more gloomy news for the NYT specifically from 2008.

TV is a little diverent, cuz the internet hasn't (until recenty), directly competed with it. It will in the future.

Wildo7

Except the print media didn't suffer until the internet took off and now are really starting to show signs of trouble with the economy in disarray as well. The print media was going to have problems regardless of whatever bias you perceive. The fact that you, and people like you despise the NYT for a perceived bias hadn't hurt it up until now. And yet you are trying to say that an industry with the odds heavily stacked against it is dying because of the bias. How does that make any sense? You're just projecting what you want the causes to be onto what they actually are.

P.S. Your link is not old, it's 2004, and it only shows a politicization of the media as a whole, both right and left (Fox News being the same as the others in that study). I'm not arguing whether there is a bias or not, I'm saying there's no evidence that the bias is the cause of the print media's ills.

Patriot_in_NY

Ummmm, the NYT has been in trouble for several years. So has the print media in general. The economy is a factor, the digtal market is a biggie to, but they are not the only factors. People distrust them (not just repubs either). Combine that with a ready & cheaper alternative and it deadly.

If people trusted them more, they might not be in AS BAD a shape. Certainly better than the freefall they are in, which is likely to HURT THEM as they transistion to "new media". If people dopn't beleive their print stuff, they ain't gonna start beleiving it just cuz it shows up on the computer

Wildo7

So why hasn't general distrust and bias in other media outlets that are not threatened by the internet and the poor economy led to financial troubles then?

Your claim that the perceived bias is adding to the downfall is unsubstantiated.

The thing that Murdoch figured out with Fox News is that people like the bias. He didn't try to hide it, he exaggerated it. And MSNBC has since reciprocated. People seem to find that more entertaining, which is most certainly a bad sign for the public, but it seems to indicate that bias doesn't hurt ratings/circulation.