What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
361 Comments
- casek, on 03/16/2009, -3/+87as much as i abhor limbaugh, he does have the first amendment on his side and it should continue to be on his side, as well as the others.
the real problem with media is the lack of interest in the news that matters. they'd rather use whitehouse talking points than cover the real scandals that are bringing this country to its knees.
the fairness doctrine is a swipe at our freedoms. one more cut to bleed us of our liberties.
if you want your country back, turn off limbaugh or anyone else you disagree with. don't give him the coverage by bitching about him. he thrives on that *****.
stop buying products from his advertisers. demand truth in media. don't ***** with our liberties. - 919kwjc, on 03/16/2009, -6/+89FTA: "But the greater truth is that newspaper reporters, editors and institutions are responsible for the boots-on-the-ground grub work that produces the news stories and performs the government watchdog role so crucial to a democratic republic."
Watchdog role? Really? If the newspapers actually did that then they would have a chance. But, as clearly demonstrated in the past 2 presidential elections, they don't do that at all.
The truth is simple: Newspapers are dying because they are doing a lousy job. - inactive, on 03/16/2009, -24/+103You mean in other words demand stations punish right-wing talk show hosts for being successful and rewarding failures who cannot draw in ratings by forcing them to be put on the air?
By the way what is interesting reading this guy Coughlin's bio (never heard of him) is that he seemed to only be the target of FDR the minute he stopped supporting him, but early in his career he was left alone when he praised the New Deal. Is this the same way you people want to poison America, only give time to radio pundits who bow down and kiss the ring of Obama? - ehaugan, on 03/16/2009, -9/+78Burried for another boring "silence the opposition" article.
- Barackalypse, on 03/16/2009, -7/+76No, Craigslist and online news are killing newspapers. Craigslist's free ads gut classified ad revenue, online news delivered for free continuously throughout the day trumps costing money and coming once every 24 hours. Its really quite simple, but feel free to show your ignorance and try and blame some vast right wing demonization as the reason.
- jayselle, on 03/16/2009, -2/+55The author of this, Kathleen Parker, is completely out of touch. Newspapers are dying because their information is already outdated by the time we read it. The 21st century is all about on demand services. When we want news we can use the internet by means of a computer or mobile device. We can automatically filter out the stuff we don't want vs a newspaper stacked full of junk.
Rather than complain they should be adjusting their business models. - gpageau, on 03/16/2009, -0/+37Dugg. No kidding. I find it fascinating how the newspaper industry is complaining so much about their industry dying when, in fact, they've done it themselves.
- smacksaw, on 03/16/2009, -6/+43Leave the Dildoheads out of this.
A free press in a free society? We have that. It's called the internet.
Multi-media mega-conglomerates of news is not a free or fair media. Give me a mother ***** break. Join 2009, Kath. We don't have free media and fair reporting when all of the newspapers are owned by a select few people who squash dissent and have a political agenda. And that doesn't matter if it's the right or left. - 919kwjc, on 03/16/2009, -1/+36The more I read this the more stupid and silly it sounds. Newspapers aren't dying because of talk radio. What a joke.
Here's a few other reasons that have much more to do with the death of traditional newspapers:
1. The internet and the ease of access to electronic news from competing sources
2. Mobile phones, for the same reason as #1
3. They're doing a bad job at reporting
4. The are no longer an efficient way to deliver what advertisers want
5. They're poorly managed - poopsybythebay, on 03/15/2009, -64/+98Absolutely--Also, she is 100% wrong about the papers being too liberal. Liberal is reality based and the papers have become over the last 30 years about toeing the corporate line which is anything but reality based. Example: the financial crisis, where CEO's lied over and over about their health and the paper reported it as fact. The Iraq War, where the papers allowed the administration to plant a story and then go on every TV show to point to that as the reason to go into Iraq. All phony and none of it liberal. Another thing is the whole Glenn Beck alternate universe--someone needs to stop that mental case.
- omgwtflawl, on 03/16/2009, -7/+40I agree! The real culprit here is this whole "1st amendment" thing, or whatever that is! I think its time we took a good hard look on whether this "amendment" everyone seems to be hiding behind deserves a place in the 21st century! Death to those who disagree!
- Tyler126, on 03/15/2009, -18/+49Dugg.
Although I agree with everything in the article, it seemed obvious she was completely oblivious to the facts that there are news events that mainstream media simply do not cover, the news that are impossible to obtain other than from internet journalists (Bilderberg meetings, anyone?)
In that sense, online media does fill the void of what is missing in mainstream media. - RonPauls, on 03/16/2009, -9/+40This is great news. Newspapers have shilled for the state and ignored their audience for a long time.
We can do without these mouthpieces for government. - pimpjockey, on 03/16/2009, -7/+37Keyword for the day!
"Privately owned"
If we lived I Nazi Germany you could push your views on us and take over the airwaves as you suggest. - jnisme, on 03/16/2009, -4/+32"Because the airwaves were not created to allow people like Rush to poison America!"
WTF is wrong with you. You get to dictate what is allowed to be broadcast and what isn't? You get to determine what is "poison" and what is not? STFU *****. - inactive, on 03/16/2009, -11/+38What is it with the left?
This bimbo wants to bring back the dinosaur dead-tree media which is obsolete.
Al Gore wants to bring back the Rickshaw - if not the horse & buggy.
The MSM is dying for a very good reason. It is obsolete and will go the way of the buggy whip.
Not only that, but it simply cannot be trusted to present unbiased news whatsoever.
Newspapers should die.
Nobody in their right mind would waste their time and walk to the corner store to purchase old news - from last night at best, when instead all they need to do is log onto the web and get current news for free.
DIE MSM DIE! - Barackalypse, on 03/16/2009, -2/+29You don't need to take anything back, Rush only consumes one frequency per city for 3 hours a day, that leaves dozens of other frequencies and plenty of time to compete with him. Go listen to Air America if you want a different message than Rush (assuming you can find them in your city, they seem to have gone bankrupt back in 2006 and I'm not sure how many stations kept them after that).
- Orlandin, on 03/16/2009, -0/+26As evil as he may be, there is no legal way to remove him, and should not be. He runs an opinionated talk show just like his opposite Ed Schultz. The ability to express one opinion should not be hampered just because it is not your opinion. Even though he is a large ball of hate, his job is important to get people thinking, talking, and active in politics.
I think he is a horrible person, but I still believe that the best way to combat people like him is to support their opposition. - MonkeyOverlord, on 03/16/2009, -4/+30"But the greater truth is that newspaper reporters, editors and institutions are responsible for the boots-on-the-ground grub work that produces the news stories and performs the government watchdog role so crucial to a democratic republic. "
ROFLOL!!!! Anyone who pays attention to civil liberties issues, especially involving police and prosecutorial misconduct knows that Parker is almost completely full of ***** on this. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen a local reporter just ignore blatant signs of abuse and corruption for the sake of not rocking the boat and causing trouble with the local authorities.
For every gitmo they cover, there thousands of serious abuses of American liberties that get nothing more than a vague write up(that is often wrong or slanted) and that is usually a regurgitation of the official government line.
For all intents and purposes, the media is damn near a guard dog for the state against the public today. - TubaTechno, on 03/16/2009, -7/+31"Liberal is reality based"
Now you're taking seriously a quote from Cobert?! Really?! - Phaedryn, on 03/16/2009, -1/+25If it was unpopular, how could it be any kind of a threat? If so few people are listening, as you seem to believe, how could it he (Limbaugh) be affecting much?
Hmmm... - akchrs, on 03/16/2009, -9/+32"someone needs to stop that mental case."
pot kettle black. - inactive, on 03/16/2009, -18/+40"DEMAND back OUR airwaves"?????? Obama hasn't even nationalized it yet and you're screaming to take it back. Cut him some slack. First he has to nationalize the banks, then the health care system, THEN he can nationalize the media.
- IHopeHeFails, on 03/16/2009, -3/+24@Novenator - Here's a hint - Newspapers are not the only place to find real journalism. Welcome to the online world. I am not sure how you can claim that no newspapers means no information flow and be logged on to Digg at the same time. This would seem to be paradoxical, but you appear to have pulled it off. Congratulations on being blinded by propaganda.
- shodanx, on 03/16/2009, -8/+29as much of an immoral hypocrite ***** that limbaugh guy is, I'm with solid12345
the airwave should go to whoever generate the most profit
and for fm radio that is whatever is the most crass populist lowest common denominator ***** you can get
people stuck in jams at 6 don't want two-sided, involved and agreeable discussion
they want easily listening, feel good rhetoric, that not the radio stations that are at fault
it's listeners that are the "problem" - Number23, on 03/16/2009, -1/+22So a person who writes for a newspaper thinks ill of those who don’t read newspapers….?
Throwing yesterday’s news on people’s laws in not a business model for the 21st century. - TSCheredar, on 03/16/2009, -0/+20No, I'm pretty sure the newspaper industry is dying because they are old businesses who are unable to cope with change.
- inactive, on 03/16/2009, -1/+21You can "demand back your airwaves"... Change the station.
- inactive, on 03/16/2009, -4/+24treehugger, I dugg you down because your point is irrelevant and a tad bit looney.
- inactive, on 03/16/2009, -2/+22Oh so the newspapers dying is because of Rush Limbaugh? Talk about out of touch. This is exactly why young people aren't subscribing to print newspapers
- mogebier, on 03/16/2009, -5/+24You know the Liberals tried to make their own network right?
Remember "Air America"??
Gore and his lackeys pumped millions of $$$ into it and it FAILED, miserably.
And it FAILED because nobody wants to listen to the crap they were shoveling.
Apparently people want to listen to Conservatives. That is why there are so many of them on the radio.
Pull your head out and realize that the whole market is driven my advertisers and listeners, just like TV is. - inactive, on 03/16/2009, -9/+28CNN admitted to promoting Saddam's agenda for 8 years in Iraq.
Their excuse was that to not toe the Saddam line would have meant that they would have been thrown out of Iraq.
They have zero credibility.
The New York Times published a false rumor about a McCain affair with zero evidence.
Larry Summers gave a press conference detailing his sex with Obama, the New York Times ignored it.
A Muslim man and community leader, CEO of a Muslim news organization beheads his wife, the press ignores it.
Instead, they publish extensive coverage of a chimpanzee attack.
When the Tsunami hit Asia a couple of years back, the New York Times wrote a scathing attack on Bush - as if it were somehow his fault and or responsibility to react - which it is/was not. Bush had sent an aircraft carrier to immediately supply fresh water (they have enormous desalination capabilities) saving thousands of lives.
Meanwhile, Koffi Annan - who WAS responsible was given a pass. He was interrupted while on his ski vacation in Jackson Hole to come out and say that he would get to it in 2 weeks time - and that he had even planned a meeting. The Times gave him a pass.
While John Edwards was running for President, there was extensive evidence about his extramarital affair and that he had impregnated his mistress while his wife suffered with cancer. ALL of the MSM ignored this story, and it was broken by the National Enquirer.
Newsweek decided to kill the Monica Lewinsky story some years ago, it was broken by non MSM media sources.
We had to rely on the National Enquirer again to break the story of Jesse Jackson's pregnant mistress... the MSM squashed that story...
The list goes on and on and on...
The MSM cannot be trusted and should die. The sooner the better. - inactive, on 03/16/2009, -3/+22Since when was CNBC billed as a journalist network, all they did was look at the figures on screen and try to interpret them, would you have ever expected C-Span to do investigative journalism of Congressman, no because that is not their job, they just report what they see in public.
- kelmaster1, on 03/16/2009, -0/+18Uh, is everyone forgetting that just about every newspaper is owned by a larger holding company? Newspaper is ok, as long as it's independent, which is dying every day. Newspaper transmits the same form of ***** television media does.
Some Newspaper Companies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaNews_Group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearst_Corporation
Any newspaper that is large enough, say the Washington Post or New York times, is it's own company, and even they own other sources of media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_ ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post_Compa ...
The point is information in Newspapers has been highly controlled since the Hearst Era... That 'local' newspaper your reading is really owned by a larger holding company. And of course there's the AP - novenator, on 03/15/2009, -35/+53When conservatives cheer the demise of printed newspapers, they are cheering the demise of information flow. Journalism serves a purpose in this country, and it's not to push an agenda, it's there to cut through the BS and get to the bottom o things. This is why CNBC is not real journalism.
- kreatre2007, on 03/16/2009, -5/+22Let's examine the root causes of newspapers going into the toilet shall we?
1. It's the 21st century. Print media is outdated. The information contained in newspapers is several hours old. Consumers want up to date and current information right at their finger tips.
2. Whether you like it or not, the media today is biased toward the left. I don't want to open a newspaper and see nothing but stories bashing the people on the right while giving those on the left a free pass.
3. Advertisers are not interested in advertising in newspapers for the 2 above reasons.
4. Talk radio is influencing political thought away from newspapers. Like it or love it, this is the way it is.
Bashing Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. won't help the newspapers. These people have a right to broadcast their beliefs on the airwaves. No one is keeping liberal talk shows off the air except market demand. If the market doesn't want to hear liberal viewpoints, they won't be broadcast. Every major liberal radio show in the last few years has failed miserably. Why? It's because there are not enough people who want to listen to it. Also, it's boring. I've listened to a few liberal radio shows. They're dull. Rush Limbaugh is entertaining, and he provokes people to actually think about what's going on. He's a perfect example of what the media in this country should be. If the news media in this country were actually objective, conservative talk radio would not be as successful as it is. I listen to these guys because I want to hear another side to the constant pro-Obama tongue wagging going on everywhere else. The people who bitch and whine about "fairness and balance" on the airwaves don't understand that liberal talk radio shows are not on the airwaves because they don't sell ads. Advertisers want to reach as many people as possible. Conservative talk radio gets tens of millions of listeners every day. If I were an advertiser (no matter what my politics were) I would want my ads on these shows. - Anachronus, on 03/16/2009, -7/+241. It is not just Limbaugh and his ilk that are killing newspapers. One need look no further than this site to see an example of what is.
2. What is is with progressives. Free speech was bashing the Bush administration with the same or greater vehemence than Limbaugh does to the current one. Criticize Obama and you need to be taken off the air? Does the word hypocrisy not apply to progressives? - gkiltz, on 03/16/2009, -1/+18There is no reason for anyone to "kill" Newspapers, they are dinosaurs, and are dying without any help!
Blaming Talk radio for the obsolescence of newspapers is like blaming the Johnstown Flood on a leaky faucet in Altoona!
The days of taking massive amounts of dead tree, imbuing it with environmental toxins and spreading it all over town has no place in the 21st Century - JigoroKano, on 03/16/2009, -1/+17Transparency in broadcast popularity is really a matter between the stations and the advertisers. I don't see what it has to do with free speech.
- inactive, on 03/16/2009, -2/+17Thank you, if we wanted balance and thoughtful discussion we would listen to NPR. Talk radio is entertainment and designed for ratings, this is why Air America doesn't "get it", they are too serious and seem to have a stick up their ass when doing their programs. Even liberals tune into Hannity or Rush just to hear what outrageous things they will say next.
- curtisag, on 03/16/2009, -2/+16You believe in collectivism, I believe in individualism. You believe in the power of Government, I believe in the power of people. You want to raise taxes, I think the income tax is immoral and unconstitutional. You want to redistribute income to the poor, I want them to learn to better themselves through education. You want to take away people's gun rights, I think guns are an important check against Government power. You see capitalism as heartless and corrupt, I give it credit for creating all the wealth, innovation, technology, and products we enjoy today. You see no value in a smaller Government, I see it as the only way to maintain our freedoms.
Your liberal ideas are no closer to "reality" than mine, we simply have a different set of values from which we determine our political beliefs. If I don't want to give my income to the poor, that doesn't mean my conviction is not based on reality (I'm poor by the way). And neo-conservatism (see Bush) is not what I outlined above. He expanded the welfare state, raised spending to astronomical levels, shredded the constitution, and more. Bush is not a conservative. - inactive, on 03/16/2009, -8/+22Typical leftist argument totally void of the print media taking personal responsibility. It's always about blaming someone else and never about stepping up and taking responsibility.
- inactive, on 03/16/2009, -1/+15"Ha Ha! Your medium is dying!"
- qerplonk, on 03/16/2009, -1/+15It's easier to read many news sources online than gathering a lot of different newspapers.
- DirkBelig, on 03/16/2009, -9/+23Gee, another day, another steaming pile of ignorant Diggers frantically fwapping out their ignorant regurgitation of what Olbermann wants them to believe.
Kathleen Parker's Stockholm Syndrome - which started when she realized that not bashing Sarah Palin would get her uninvited from the cool Beltway parties - continues here as she parrots David Frum's idiotic shibboleths. The problem with the Treason Media's losing readers is because we've been shown by conservative bloggers just how biased and dishonest they are.
The herd-followers here can't face the reality - which is ironic considering how they love to proclaim that liberals live a "reality-based existence" - that the Treason Media lies and that they don't care because they like the lies being told. (i.e. Repubicans = racist/sexist/bigoted/homophobes; neocon joooooz run everything) Dan Rather destroyed his career in a kamikazee attack based on a falsehood because he wanted to destroy Dubya more than report the facts. While he lied and blamed politics for his fate, citizen journalists pursued the TRUTH and prevented a dastardly smear from being perpetrated. Add on the regular lies from the NY Times and tell me why anyone should feel sorry for these biased propagandists for the Left.
While Parker plans her pity party and liberal Diggers hoot in mindless approval, don't forget the fact that most people don't like being lied to and will walk away from liars after time. The Treason Media sh*t their own bed. Now they sleep in it. Boo-hoo. - GreatSunJester, on 03/16/2009, -1/+15Why... yes. That is exactly what they mean. Free speech is great as long as it is "our" free speech.
- ewagnerjr2000, on 03/16/2009, -5/+19yes we need are airwaves back comrade...
- OriginalLucid1, on 03/16/2009, -8/+21Get back to me when a newspaper gets to the bottom of the RatherGate conspiracy.
Don't kid yourself, newspapers are nothing but liberal agenda pushers, whether they realize it or not. - IHopeHeFails, on 03/16/2009, -1/+14#1 reason I don't read a newspaper - it takes too long for too little information.
I can spend an hour reading through a newspaper and not get half the information I can get in 20 minutes of surfing news sites on the web. Not to mention the fact that on the 'net I can get a much wider range of information than a newspaper can provide. If they wish to compete they must do so online. Blaming the lack of readership on people being stupid is not likely to get those people to read your paper. - inactive, on 03/16/2009, -5/+18Liberals say reality has a bias but it is obvious liberals do not live in it. It is not right-wing punditry responsible for the death of the paper, it is the internet, this is a changing generation and print is dead. People want their news now, not tomorrow morning.
If you need proof of the failure of print to adapt to the 21st century, just look at the abysmal state of the magazine industry which has resorted to giving away free subscriptions as tie-ins to other promotions. -
Show 51 - 100 of 368 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is