|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:20 am Post subject: Dan Rather wants Obama to help save the news |
 |
|
http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/135834
| Quote: |
Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather called on President Barack Obama to form a White House commission to help save the press Tuesday night in an impassioned speech at the Aspen Institute.
�I personally encourage the president to establish a White House commission on public media,� the legendary newsman said.
Such a commission on media reform, Rather said, ought to make recommendations on saving journalism jobs and creating new business models to keep news organizations alive.
At stake, he argued, is the very survival of American democracy. |
First, a translation. Rather wants money. The major tv networks are not related to the survival of American democracy. Not in their current form.
And this:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashkcc.htm
| Quote: |
Couric, the highest paid TV news personality in history, commands over $14 million a year, plus bumps for non-EVENING NEWS appearances.
"She makes enough to pay 200 news reporters $75,000 a year!" demands a veteran producer. "It's complete insanity."
The angry source continues: "We report with great enthusiasm how much bankers are making, how it is out of step with reality during a recession. We'll, look at Katie!"
Couric's $300,000 a week paycheck has become the obsession of disgruntled CBS staff, just as deep layoffs rock the fishbowl.
Dozens of employees -- including staff members in D.C., San Francisco, Miami, London, Los Angeles and Moscow -- are being let go, the NEW YORK OBSERVER reports. |
Dan wants a bailout for firms that have managed their affairs poorly and is appealing to the public good to get it. Where have I heard this story before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It isn't just Dan Rather, there are graduate students pissing away about $200,000 for an MA in Journalism from Columbia University who want a handout too.
| Quote: |
We are not in favor of a bailout for the newspaper business, and we certainly don�t support subsidies that would simply prop up the status quo. But it seems increasingly clear that, at least in the short term, sustaining the kind of accountability journalism that our society needs�and that newspapers have been the chief producers of�will require some creative help from Uncle Sam. And not because newspapers failed to adapt to the digital age. Ultimately, this isn�t about newspapers.
Omnibus newspapers were, as Clay Shirky noted in a talk he gave in September at Harvard�s Shorenstein Center, historical accidents. The fact that for decades we had commercial entities (newspapers) producing a critical public good (accountability journalism) was the result of unique circumstances that no longer exist�namely, newspapers made money by selling consumers to advertisers, who had few options for reaching them on a mass scale. This allowed newspapers to charge advertisers inflated rates, and use that revenue to pay for accountability journalism that by itself wouldn�t have attracted enough readers to satisfy the advertisers.
The no-subsidies argument assumes that news outlets that deserve to survive in the new reality created by the Internet will find ways to be both commercially viable and a deliverer of accountability journalism. But as Shirky made clear, the people who want to do crossword puzzles (and the advertisers who want to reach them) will go to the crossword-puzzle sites; those who want recipes will go to recipe sites; etc. And those news outlets�whether they are newspapers or blogs or pro-am collaborations�that produce accountability journalism will pay for it how? Paywalls? Memberships? Micropayments? All may be part of the equation, but it most likely will not be enough to replace the monopoly-inflated advertising revenue that is gone for good. |
from Columbia Journalism Review via Reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When:
1) America starts being interested in quality reporting based on the information conveyed rather than the person conveying it.
2) The media raises its ratio of valuable-information-to-noise to a level worth paying for.
He'll have his sustainable business model with no governmental help required. There's a reason newspapers were having to turn to crap like crossword puzzles and advice columns to lure people in, after all; their product just wasn't very strong. And it still isn't. Plenty of articles are worth looking at for free, but the number that are worth paying for are in the decided minority. If they stopped printing that crap, they could shed a lot of dead weight. Of course a lot of them wouldn't have a product to sell if they stopped printing that crap either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
Fox News is doing just peachy without public funding:
| Quote: |
| Fox News had its best January in the history of the network, and was the only cable news network to grow year-to-year. |
|
That's because they aren't really a news network at all. Expecting real news to compete with Fox News is like expecting my story of how a man got mugged to compete with the movie Terminator. My story may be more grounded in reality, but most people will find Terminator far more interesting to watch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
It isn't just Dan Rather, there are graduate students pissing away about $200,000 for an MA in Journalism from Columbia University who want a handout too.
| Quote: |
We are not in favor of a bailout for the newspaper business, and we certainly don�t support subsidies that would simply prop up the status quo. But it seems increasingly clear that, at least in the short term, sustaining the kind of accountability journalism that our society needs�and that newspapers have been the chief producers of�will require some creative help from Uncle Sam. And not because newspapers failed to adapt to the digital age. Ultimately, this isn�t about newspapers.
Omnibus newspapers were, as Clay Shirky noted in a talk he gave in September at Harvard�s Shorenstein Center, historical accidents. The fact that for decades we had commercial entities (newspapers) producing a critical public good (accountability journalism) was the result of unique circumstances that no longer exist�namely, newspapers made money by selling consumers to advertisers, who had few options for reaching them on a mass scale. This allowed newspapers to charge advertisers inflated rates, and use that revenue to pay for accountability journalism that by itself wouldn�t have attracted enough readers to satisfy the advertisers.
The no-subsidies argument assumes that news outlets that deserve to survive in the new reality created by the Internet will find ways to be both commercially viable and a deliverer of accountability journalism. But as Shirky made clear, the people who want to do crossword puzzles (and the advertisers who want to reach them) will go to the crossword-puzzle sites; those who want recipes will go to recipe sites; etc. And those news outlets�whether they are newspapers or blogs or pro-am collaborations�that produce accountability journalism will pay for it how? Paywalls? Memberships? Micropayments? All may be part of the equation, but it most likely will not be enough to replace the monopoly-inflated advertising revenue that is gone for good. |
from Columbia Journalism Review via Reason. |
I'm sure subsidies will come without strings. Oh, how naive does one have to be to attend J-school at Columbia. Never mind the financial lunacy.
The papers and networks do not hold anyone/thing accountable. They worship power. The suckle at the establishment and elite's tit. I guess it's only fair that the state pays for her own cheer-leading press?
Pluto, did you see that Hugo came out of the closet and now calls himself a Marxist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kimbop wrote: |
Fox News is doing just peachy without public funding:
| Quote: |
| Fox News had its best January in the history of the network, and was the only cable news network to grow year-to-year. |
|
That's because they aren't really a news network at all. |
None of them are. Bloomberg is the best, and that isn't saying much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^I haven't seen what Hugo has been up to lately, but I am not surprised he has announced his new religion.
Kimbop, another one of Murdoch's children, the Wall Street Journal is the only profitable daily newspaper right now. It's chief rival, the New York Times' debt rating is still in junk status, 'Ba' I believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obviously the intellectually backwards Americans watch FoxNews because they don't know how to read. Liberals are smarter and prefer reading than the simplistic watching/listening. That's why the Wall Street Journal's readership is low and the New York Times is such a great seller...oh wait.
Oh, I can explain why liberal media isn't successful. Its because FoxNews is entertainment, like the movie Terminator. How can Hollywood compete against a James Cameron movie?
The fact of the matter is, liberalism is the TRUE way and anyone who believes otherwise are not intelligent. They are unevolved. Their thinking is backwards. They are all lemmings. Backward Christians, Red Necks, and hillbillies who know nothing. Anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence can SEE why liberalism is the way.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bashing newspapers and the media is easy--it's a national passtime.
It would seem that many believe news just grows on trees in the forest and all anyone has to do is wander around and pick it for free.
What are some proposals for keeping some kind of news-gathering industry alive...you know, the local court reporters, people who attend city council meetings and report what the local government is up to? Who is going to investigate what effect pouring toxic chemicals next to the city water supply has?
Technology has made the old business model obsolete. Who wants to pay for day old news? It looks to me like Rather is just calling for a commission to study an industry crisis--he's not calling for subsidies for buggy whip manufacturers. A commission bringing together relevant experts to highlight the crisis and maybe find a way forward looks like a good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| What are some proposals for keeping some kind of news-gathering industry alive...you know, the local court reporters, people who attend city council meetings and report what the local government is up to? Who is going to investigate what effect pouring toxic chemicals next to the city water supply has? |
Bloggers for whom it's a hobby that might bring in a little ad banner revenue, but for whom the act of reporting is mostly a personal interest or hobby. Full time professional journalists are not required for this kind of thing. There are people like this in nearly every city.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| It looks to me like Rather is just calling for a commission to study an industry crisis--he's not calling for subsidies for buggy whip manufacturers. A commission bringing together relevant experts to highlight the crisis and maybe find a way forward looks like a good idea. |
If there's an industry "crisis", then the for-profit industry in question can pay to bring together relevant experts to highlight the criss and maybe find a way forward. If Dan Rather is really concerned about this, well, Dan Rather has been grossly over-paid for years, so he has the means to fund a think tank in order to solve it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
