The latest paid circulation figures for major newspapers are out (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003316421), and as the US celebrates its 300 millionth citizen, they paint a bleakly depressing picture of the future of the newspaper industry in this country. The yearly numbers are down for nearly every major publication, except for the tabloid-style New York Post. The industry itself has been quick to blame the Internet for this decline in readership--and since the two most widely read news sites belong to the New York Times and Washington Post, there may or may not be a corresponding decline in ad revenue--but I feel this is a facile explanation. Even self-serving.
Consider the Washington Post's attempt, this past year, to establish a tabloid 'express' version of itself along the same lines as the New York Post. Initially, when this was handed out free at subway stations, every second rider could be seen reading a copy, thus bolstering the WaPo's pitch to advertisers and at the same time hastening the decline of its own paid base. Now a year later, the sight of anyone reading it is increasingly rare; the iPod and the paperback have returned to dominance (but not the Internet, since you can't get it down there). And that's no surprise; the content of 'The Express' is uniformly severely compressed and massively dumbed-down, like a high school journal. 'Why?' is the question here. Why publish such an obvious failure in the first place? Why encourage subway riders to cancel their home subscriptions? And why have traditonally attractive and well-written publications as the WaPo, the New York Times, and the Miami Herald fallen on such hard times that they'd have to resort to measures like this?
In the case of the Times, nothing sums it up better (aside from its quixotic and off-putting attempts to crucify Joe Lieberman--or, occasionally, act as a mouthpiece for Al Qaeda) than its Sunday sports magazine 'Play.' Looking literally like a playbill dedicated to drama--many of its designers and photographers were pulled over from the drama section--it looks and reads exactly like Wilhelmina's gay assistant in 'Ugly Betty's' idea of 'what butch guys in New Jersey should really be exposed to about sports' instead of all that boring stuff about players and stats and managerial moves. Oh yeah, and scores. In short, it is ignorant and condescending, which is increasingly the Times' overarching problem in its ongoing mass disconnect with the rest of America. But at least as the Times goes down like the Titanic, management there remains loyal to its staffers.
Not so at the Washington Post. The WaPo's solution, over and over these past few years of steeply declining profits, has been to axe or buy out its writers and editors. Some of its most famous, even film and TV critics, are now employed on a freelance basis through the 'Washington Post Writers' Group'. Consequently, many articles are not even copy-proofed; headlines are sometimes misspelled, and reporters, more and more of whom are interns, increasingly troll the internet for stories rather than going out and investigating them. It's all they know how to do. And there are few senior editors left to tell them anything different.
It's no coincidence that the only rag showing a climb in circulation on this list is a right-of-center one; like most of the papers on the list, the WaPo, which has always specialized in liberal political crusades, is now, like the BBC, into leftist social manipulation as well. Muslims account for only 2-7% of the local population, scarcely more than Witnesses or Adventists, yet not a day goes by without a photo-spread on veiled local women celebrating Ramadan or despairing refugees from Iraq or Lebanon rebuilding their lives at a Virginia mosque. Good luck finding similar coverage of Rosh Hoshannah--or Christmas. It is common knowledge--and a considerable source of pride for the staff--that the WapO was once crucial in bringing down the Nixon Administration; now they seem intent on doing the same to that of Bush. How else to explain their ardent (and anti-factual) championing of the repellently sexist and anti-semitic Jim Webb against an admittedly equally repellent George Allen, or the mediocre longtime hack Ben Cardin over the bright and personable Michael Steele? It can't be about 'staying the course', since, unlike the Times, the Post has managed to hedge its bets editorially on that issue.
Like most of the newspapers on the list, the Wapo is way out of step with both the cultural and political reality of its readership, which, however diverse its roots may be, are more culturally pro-American and politically centrist--as well as far older--than the brain trust on 15th Street credits. Unlike the BBC, the WaPo cannot impose a user's fee on all area readers; to survive, they need to get real. And I'm guessing, though I am personally acquainted with only about half the newspapers on this 'endangered list', that this is the case with many of the others, as well. As Kolchak used to say on the 'Night Stalker', 'It's noooze, Vincenzo--noooze!' Americans are tired of opinions, in newsprint at least. They want 'nooze'...
The World Turns...The Dumbing Down of America
(#5434)The anti-intellectualism promoted by the right has taken firm root. There always has been a tension between being educated, a willingness to listen to divergent opinions, to look at the world as multi-faceted as opposed to simple spoon fed platitudes that agree with what a person thinks anyway.
I've often marveled at the success of right-wing radio. But I maintain that it's popularity is principally due the fact that it is a warm medium, cheap to produce, that gives people a simple view of the world, rather than complex. Rightie's want to hear what they already think, Leftie's want to be informed beyond what is alrady inside their head. Rightie's can't stand cognitive dissonance, yet this is exactly what Leftie's seek.
Newspapers are dying exactly because reading a newspaper was once a sign of intelligence, it was a goal, people wanted to be smart, to be seen as being smart...now it's just a sign of elitism and we all know how bad that is, don't we?
People that rail against the MSM, (and yes, that means You, you know who you are), simply want another parrot's voice to reinforce what is already inside your head. Listen, you've won, the MSM is rapidly on the skids to becoming trash. But this is just part and parcel of a broader trend, anti-science, anti-rational as opposed to emotive reasoning that is emerging as victorious.
Hey, it's your world, you won...now live with it.
Best Wishes,
Traveller
Wrong.
(#5445)ut I maintain that it's popularity is principally due the fact that it is a warm medium, cheap to produce, that gives people a simple view of the world, rather than complex. Rightie's want to hear what they already think, Leftie's want to be informed beyond what is alrady inside their head. Rightie's can't stand cognitive dissonance, yet this is exactly what Leftie's seek.
You clearly don't listen to NPR or the BBC much, because they're as painfully predictable as Fox, if in different ways. Seeking cognitive dissonance, indeed. Pffft.
Where you are correct, though, is in this: a warm medium, cheap to produce, that gives people a simple view of the world, rather than complex. You seem to imagine that most people prefer difficult thought over an echo chamber, when our own experience in looking at the traffic this board and its predesesor produce as compared to echo chambers of both right and left tells us otherwise. Very few want or have ever wanted difficult thought. What has changed is not demand, but the availability of supply. With all media beoming cheaper, both due to productivity gains in their own productive processes and even cheaper new media becoming available, it pays to tell people what they want to hear and limit yourself to a smaller but more loyal base.
When putting out a paper required a mass audience and a huge and expensive infrastructure, you had to play to a wider audience to make it pay. Any publication that narrow-casted either had to have a very dedicated audience (specialty magazines and academic journals) or was produced as a marginal labor-of-love. This is no longer the case at this point in the cycle, and the result is fragmentation, viable niches and a death of the unloved center and difficult reading. The consumer does not want (and has never wanted) critical analysis, but rather validation with a veneer of analysis.
"Unfortunately the universe doesn't agree with me. We'll see which one of us is still standing when this is over." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
Predictability
(#5493)Hm. There is such a thing as predictability, but differences of degree matter. For example:
It is entirely predictable that Fox News will credulously report the Administration's latest spin as fact.
It is entirely predictable that the BBC will not credulously report the Adminisration's latest spin as fact.
Both are correct. Both are entirely predictable. And yet, one of them leaves so much more room.
"In the very long run, we are all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes
Pfft again.
(#5495)The BBC is predictably anti-American and Lefty in outlook, sez I. Ergo, it is often worthless crap. :^)
"Unfortunately the universe doesn't agree with me. We'll see which one of us is still standing when this is over." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
The Beeb? Anti-American, you say?
(#5636)Well, actually, the BBC says that the BBC is anti-American. Or as the BBC's Washington correspondent says, "the BBC [has] treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'."
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
The BBC itself admits it's biased
(#5633)according to their recent self-critique summit (which I believe was motivated by their own declining popularity in a market where listeners are compelled to pay for the service). Problem is, they don't have any idea what to do about it, so they keep doing clever, objective things like embedding their reporters with the Taliban.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
I Have Aways Tired to Discern & Sail the Cultural Currents....
(#5500)...developing within our, or a, society. Broad strokes is both my forte and failing. But when you say:
"The consumer does not want (and has never wanted) critical analysis, but rather validation with a veneer of analysis."
Well, on this we can agree...maybe just as a basic human tendency. I'm not down on people for this, it is what it is, I know that this lives within myself and that's why I listen to Rush or Mr. Savage from time to time.
But, I do think that there has been a general denigrating of intellectualism within the society at large, an acceptance that any one person's opinion is as good as any one else's, even if that person is an expert. Interestingly this relativism has been more pushed by the Right than what would be traditionally a Leftie issue.
I know that to a large degree the elites and policy wonks have brought this on themselves with their often displayed sense of overbearing superiority.
And yet, on important questions...I'd rather have a policy wonk making the calls than your local, run of the mill truck driver.
I just think it interesting how the Right has played out on this institution of equality of opinion, while the Left is taking essentially an elitist position...which should belong to the Royal Right, (grin).
There is something to be gleaned also I think in the idea that the world has shifted a bit from the Rational to the Emotive.
All over. Everywhere, and this may not be good for Mankind.
Best Wishes,
Traveller
Oh, I'm not blaming people.....
(#5512)....for being people, either. As you say, it is what it is. I'm just claiming we're going through what is part of a normal cycle.
"an acceptance that any one person's opinion is as good as any one else's, even if that person is an expert"
I wonder about expertise in some contexts, myself. Tetlock's book was a good palliative against excessive reliance on experts, at least as far as forecasting. And what are most pundits called on to do, if not forecast? For example, the tendency towards over-forecasting very unlikely events is painfully obvious. Everybody and his brother likes to toss out a "sea-change" in this or the "death" of that, knowing full well that if they're correct they'll get the kudos and if they're wrong it'll be forgotten within the month. And the problem is only made worse by their joining explicitly into the political process. Now you have to wonder both about the professional biases they bring and their private motivations. Experts are not trusted for many of the same reasons sell-side equity analysts are in disrepute.
"Unfortunately the universe doesn't agree with me. We'll see which one of us is still standing when this is over." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
Not anti-intellectualism, anti-academia
(#5537)There is a difference I think. Folks like Thomas Sowell, Antonin Scalia, William Buckley and Charles Murray for example are all prized by the right. Each is clearly an intellectual. It is the cesspool of the humanities departments in colleges and universities that properly receives derision.
I do think your last point is a good one. Reason alone has been widely examined and found wanting. Not sure that's a good thing either.
I'm trying to make the best out of a bad situation. I don't need to hear crap from a bunch of hippie freaks living in denial! Screw you guys, I'm going home!
Speaking from that cesspool
(#5542)Nuts to you, pal!
A man must be orthodox upon most things, or he will never even have time to preach his own heresy.
Come on Hobbseist, it really is
(#5582)Swarthmore, Haverford and Bryn Mawr were like that in the early 1980's and Penn, Villanova, St Joes the same 15 years later. Bloom's Closing of The American Mind is an accurate portrayal of my persoanl anecdotal experience.
I'm trying to make the best out of a bad situation. I don't need to hear crap from a bunch of hippie freaks living in denial! Screw you guys, I'm going home!
It must be true!
(#5605)seeing as how there are only ~2500 4 year schools, your experience surely applies to all of them.
I blame it all on the Internet
Any comments on Bloom's book? nt
(#5664)xxx
I'm trying to make the best out of a bad situation. I don't need to hear crap from a bunch of hippie freaks living in denial! Screw you guys, I'm going home!
Haven't read it
(#5687)and since my college experience was 1976 - 81, don't have any anecdotes. All the whining I've heard seems overblown to me. I had some professors who were asses, for different reasons, but I didn't think there was a culture war going on because of it.
I blame it all on the Internet
Newsflash!
(#5638)Philadelphia-area universities were cesspools (10-25 years ago)!
But seriously ... I don't deny that the kinds of ills Bloom diagnosed (however tendentiously) plagued many supposedly top-flight universities, and - to a lesser degree and to a lesser extent - continue to do so. The judgment, however, that these ills are the most serious problems facing the university (generally, or liberal arts specifically) today seems, well, behind-the-times.
A man must be orthodox upon most things, or he will never even have time to preach his own heresy.
Couldn't care less about
(#5665)"the most serious problems facing the university."
Just hope they stop being cesspools.
I'm trying to make the best out of a bad situation. I don't need to hear crap from a bunch of hippie freaks living in denial! Screw you guys, I'm going home!
Yeah, I figured.
(#5723)See my earlier comment re: nuts.
A man must be orthodox upon most things, or he will never even have time to preach his own heresy.
I'm Very Interested in Getting an Update
(#5742)My sense is that most of us don't really know much about what's going on in colleges today. For example, a sizable number of people seem to be believe that it's still 1969 in campuses all over America and a few are even convinced the corridors are full of Commies.
Considering how much money is spent on higher education, it's amazing how little the public knows or cares about higher education.
I'd be delighted if you (and any other academics here) would share your thoughts and experiences.
Hold on there
(#5768)We won't stand for any of that digging up actual facts or real anecdotes about the academy of 2006. No time for that; the hippies and yippies have barricaded the quad!
I'm a Ph.D. Student in Economics.
(#5957)I got my undergrad BA in Poli Sci at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and I'm working on my Economics Ph.D.
Marxism as an analytical tool is very much alive, mostly because it's useful. Marxism as either a political movement or predictive tool is almost completely dead. There are some corners of academia which are essentially circle-jerks; the arts are more vulnerable to this than other areas, for obvious reasons. And, yes, most academics are definitely left of center -- but keep in mind, these are people who are generally foregoing lucrative private sector opportunities for the opportunity to influence young minds and create new knowledge For The Greater Good. That sort of tradeoff attracts lefties more than it attracts righties.
"Funeral by funeral, science advances." The same is true of social sciences and the arts. The conditions in the US which inspired people to take up Marxism (Jim Crow, the inadequacy of the social safety net, inadequate educational opportunities, the pointlessness of the Vietnam War) were addressed to at least some degree, so people stopped being Marxists. The revealed brutality of Marxist regimes and poverty of the remaining Marxist regimes didn't hurt; most folks view the experiment as decisively over. Then time passed and the commies retired, to be replaced by folks who integrated their best insights but aren't making the same mistakes.
"In the very long run, we are all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes
Good Lord!
(#5960)That's the first post I've seen from you that I've agreed with more than 50% of! The arrow of progress, indeed! Now if we can only make it to 66%.....
"Unfortunately the universe doesn't agree with me. We'll see which one of us is still standing when this is over." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
In reality,
(#5983)I'm a socially liberal, fiscally moderate suburban-raised white boy. It's the Bush Administration which has driven me to polemic (and drink).
"In the very long run, we are all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes
Man after my own heart, drink up; this too will pass. BTW,
(#6037)I'm with Bernard, that was a good comment and I can agree with most of it.
I'm currently, just for grins, taking a course at the local Uni in the Continuous Learning Program. It's a grad course with mostly Grad students and a few undergrads. I make it a point on my way home after class to stop in one or another of the many snack and coffee bars abounding on the Campus and talk to folks.
Get some interesting conversations going... :).
The K Codes explained HERE.
oh man those coffee shop patrons have no idea
(#6050)what they're in for.
What course are ya taking? Hopefully not one you could be teaching. Do you raise your hand when you want to speak? So many questions...
Yeah!!!
(#6068)Do you sit in the front row and ask incessant questions? Or do you slouch in the back row and toss out quips like they were candy? Gems such as "pfffft! As if!" or "Could be? It's too early to tell" Inquiring minds want to know!
I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
Front row because I can't hear too well; few questions - the
(#6231)course matter is fairly predictable. The discussions are pretty good though.
I have a group project *. :(
The Instructor apparently did not read my second grade report card wherein Sister Mary Victor said "Does not play well with others."
Haven't had occasion to say "too early..." as yet; though I can sense it coming as we move into the 1930s. :)
* What's up with that? Since when do Audit Students get involved with them???
The K Codes explained HERE.
Arrgghhhhh!
(#6369)There is nothing more awful under the Sun than the Group Project. Particularly at the grad level with PT students involved. Everybody's opinionated but nobody has time.
"Unfortunately the universe doesn't agree with me. We'll see which one of us is still standing when this is over." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
THAT is the truth... :) NT
(#6371)The K Codes explained HERE.
No, this
(#6375)IS the truth. Ken, do nothing until you see somebody else make a move. Otherwise they will just "sponge" off of you! g@#d@#$m younger generation! They're all a bunch of slackers!
I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
The 20 somethings are okay, it's the 30 and 40s that sluff. NT
(#6383)The K Codes explained HERE.
And
(#6384)ask really stupid questions pretty much all the time. No wonder they didn't make it through on their first attempt!
I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
Kids vs. Group Project - cagematch!
(#6385)Kids win. FATALITY.
"In the very long run, we are all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes
Heh, you're both right! :) NT
(#6418)The K Codes explained HERE.
Hey,
(#6357)I forgot the big question "Yo,...Is this going to be on the test?"
I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
Nah, no Prof is likely to hear that from a lazy old
(#6370)Dude who's just auditing the class -- particularly from one of us devotees of the Alfred E. Newman School of Higher Edumacation... :)
The K Codes explained HERE.
When he wants to speak,
(#6073)Ken pushes the earth down.
It only looks like he's raising his hand.
Nah, I mostly listen, learn more that way. American
(#6228)Political Thought. Figured it was time I learned something about it since it seems to intrigue all you guys. And no, no way I could be teaching it.
Depends, earth lowered for questions, not for discussions. Again, I mostly listen.
It's about as boring as I was afraid it would be... :)
Gets me out of the house, though. The kids are cool, the thirty somethings less so.
The K Codes explained HERE.
If you don't mind Ken
(#6298)could you make a list of the course reading? I took a great American Political Thought class and would like to compare the two.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
Here's the reading list
(#6354)The textbook is American Political Thought, 5th Edition; Dolbeare and Cummings.
Follwing is the initial reading list, others will be assigned. Those with an asterisk are required, the remainder recommended [first test drew heavily on two "recommended... :( ]
The Declaration of Independence *
Common Sense
The Radicalism of the American Revolution
What the Anti Federalists Were For
The Federalist Papers, at a minimum 1, 10, 14, 47, 48, 49, 54 *
If Men Were Angels
Partisanship and the Birth of America's Second Party
Democracy in America *
Civil disobedience and Other Essays *
The Souls of Black Folk *
What Social Classes Owe Each Other
Public Opinion *
Letter From a Birmingham Jail *
Johnson's State of the Union Address, 1964
Capitalism and Freedom
Uncertain Victory, Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought
The Rebuke of History
The Opening of the American Mind
Prescription, Authority, and Ordered Freedom
A Theory of Justice
The End of History *
The Road to Serfdom
If he's lucky, I'll go through about a third or less the required stuff... :)
Auditing is great; shoulda tried it 50 years ago. I'm sure glad this is only six weeks at two hours and a half twice a week, don't think I could've endured a whole semester of hour long classes.
The K Codes explained HERE.
I <3 you guyz.
(#6070)You bring so much to the discussions in class.
"In the very long run, we are all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes
I'm almost afraid to touch that one... :) NT
(#6225)The K Codes explained HERE.
Hey Kimmitt
(#5975)How about a good quality diary on somethin econ related now that yer part of the site again?
Marxism ain't dead at the econ dept. at UMass Amherst where I go to school. But I think it's one of the few in the country that still identifies with Marxism.
Philosophy dept.s are a dif. story. Radical libertarians and bona-fide marxists are about equally represented in my experience. You've got a few of both.
Feminist history and Africana studies are mushy like everyone is complaining but no less so than 'Communications' or what-have-you.
The idea that higher education is attempting to brainwash the youth with liberal orthodoxy is laughable to me. Standards are reasonably high and conservatives are not by and large (everyone has a sob story) penalized for holding conservative views, but only if they make poor arguments.
I give out very good grades to lots of conservative Christians and haven't noticed that conservatives or liberals are more or less logical/capable of analytic thought. They get about equal marks from me.
But I have noticedthat if you penalize a conservative for poor analytic skills s/he is more likely to complain or suspect that s/he is a victim of liberal bias.
Go figure. Listen to the lame rants on this site.
After the midterms.
(#5981)I'm not a macro guy, so I don't have much new to say about the economy. Maybe we can do some fun game theory about Federal/State interactions in a week or two.
"In the very long run, we are all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes
Kimmits not too far off ...
(#5972)I'm a PhD student in Engineering, and as I was saying above, there are very few *serious* Marxist academics left, except for the occasional Chomsky. The non-serious ones are in these exotic departments like 'Latino Studies' where they pretty much perform the afore-mentioned circle-jerks in private, cordoned off from the majority of the serious researchers and students.
Every once in a while, one escapes from the pen, like Ward Churchill, and embarasses everyone.
And of course Chomsky intimidates people, so they don't want to argue with his political stances.
On the other hand, they've still got enough clout to insult the Economics department by forcing them to rename the Econ building the 'Cesar Chavez' building. After which the Econ department gave them the middle finger by moving to a much nicer new building across campus.
Now This Was a Nice Set of Exchanges, Kimmet, Catchy, Ken....
(#6119)... Elagabalus, Livia. I learned something.
Thanks for restoring the faith :>))
Best Wishes,
Traveller
Fortunately ...
(#5546)... it's a shrinking pool.
While most academics are socially liberal, being pro-gay rights, secular, friendly towards feminism in principle, and so forth, the bastions of the radical left have been shrinking. They've still got English and maybe History, as well as the fetish departments like 'Latin American Studies', but they've never had Engineering, have already lost the Sciences, and are losing Psychology.
Basically, most of them don't give a damn anymore about the 'capitalist system' and all that nonsense. They're just interested in the ideas going on in their field, most of which have moved beyond the 'everything is a social construct designed to oppress the weak' level.
Which
(#5553)way do they swing in the bondage department? Well...you said fetish...
I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
Couldn't think of a better word.
(#5614)Sometime I think these departments are created specifically to corral all the loons together in the same building, so they can speak nonsense amongst themselves while the serious academics get on with their work undisturbed.
Again, not my experience, Poli sci, English Lit, History
(#5583)(Is there anything dumber than structural history?) theology etc.
I'm trying to make the best out of a bad situation. I don't need to hear crap from a bunch of hippie freaks living in denial! Screw you guys, I'm going home!
Oh yeah ...
(#5625)... they have poly sci too.
But you should be somewhat glad, their bastions inside the academy are actually shrinking. There are a growing number of right-leaning, academics, or more importantly, more people who just don't give a damn about politics and are only commited to honest research in their fields.
Maybe it's just the U of A - libertarian state.
But it is, IMO, becomeing quietly less politicized, and you see more people abandoning doctrinaire positions, and taking seriously some unorthodox departures from the politically correct line. It's becoming less acceptable to dismiss politically incorrect arguments with invective instead of making a rational counterargument. Whereas in the 90s, a group like the students at Columbia U would be applauded, today, hardly anyone will defend them.
Are you saying there aren't equivalents on the left?
(#5797)Paul Krugman, Ronald Dworkin, Louis Gates Jr., etc.?
Thomas Sowell spent the yrs. when I was an undergrad writing about Vince Foster's murder, Linda Tripp, and accusing Clinton of trying to take Lewinsky off the headlines when he went after OBL in Sudan. His economic writings are biolerplate neoliberalism. I could write his columns on autopilot.
I'll give you Scalia, who is a pleasure to disagree with. Buckley, I suppose is some sort of public intellectual-type but hasn't really contributed anything to any field. He + Sowell blend into the psuedo-intellectual category.
I had to take Murray's writings on affirmative action out of a college course I was teaching. Just a little too illogical. His writings on psychometrics in the Bell Curve were mediocre scholarship. Granted he dared to write on a controversial topic and the criticism of his work was overblown, but looking back after a ecade his book is still full of insinuations and mediocrity. He does real research and is as you say an intellectual. Just not a very good one.
I'll take the left's intellectuals over yours any day of the week. Same goes for the quality of scholarship in any of those 'cesspools' over what's churned out in most conservative think-tanks.
I don't think I said that, care to get me a cite
(#5800)The question at hand was "anti-intellectualism" on the right. I merely argued that's simply an incorrect notion and that the right does like intellectuals, just not humanities based academics.
But keep arguing, with well, somebody :)
I'm trying to make the best out of a bad situation. I don't need to hear crap from a bunch of hippie freaks living in denial! Screw you guys, I'm going home!
just in case you weren't saying that
(#5804)I went on to trash half your intellectuals as practically 'psuedo' and then claimed my list was better.
Don't you wanna defend your side's 'intelelctuals' against my trenchant onslaught? (Then I won't have to argue with anyone imaginary, assuming you are the real jackson mead).
You may be a "genius", but you're sure predictable.
(#5484)This "liberals = smart, conservatives = dumb - Ungawa!" drivel is so pathetically cliche'd that anyone with sense would be embarrassed to repeat it. IIRC it started as the mantra of BDS-afflicted liberals who were trying to figure out how people as brilliant as the inventor of the Internet and a D student from Yale could lose successive Presidential elections. "I've got it - those Red-Staters are too dumb to know what's good for them and for the country!" they mumbled to each other during primal scream therapy classes.
Apparently you've joined the ranks of the self-proclaimed intelligentsia. Just don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back. The MENSA application is in the mail.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Oh, Come On
(#5492)Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that the slow death of the newspaper industry is a collateral consequence of the Right's having prevailed in its campaign to dumbify the entire world? Setting aside the political overlay, do you really even believe that people read newspapers less today because they're just not as smart?
No way. As Sebastien pointed out above, it's all about the internet. It's about not having to deal with the paper, and the recycling, and the smudge on your fingers. Ten years ago, I was a complete newspaper-addict. But I'll bet I haven't picked up a physical newspaper in a month -- and I am today far better informed than I was then, and am able to access infinitely more divergent and (to me) dissonant views than I was then. In this instance, Sebastien's allusion to Occam's Razor is right on the money (not to mention rather deftly put).
That's how it is on this bitch of an earth.
Yah, that's a pretty silly
(#5497)Blaming newspaper decline on the deliberate dumbification programs of the right. Sadly, it's only slightly more silly than Kierk's assertion that they NY Times is losing circulation because they say mean things about Joe Lieberman and act as an Al-Qaeda mouthpiece.
Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
Eh ...
(#5498)... I used to be one of those Metro riders with a copy of the Washington Post.
Today, I avoid buying newspapers to avoid getting ink all over my hands, and save the hassle of having to dispose of it, and the guilt of tree-killing.
Besides, the internet is far more convenient and provides better depth of coverage, with fewer hassles.
Anti intellectualism may be "promoted" by the right but the
(#5572)font of intellectualism is the educational system in this country -- an institution solidly dominated by the left from top to bottom. You might consider their role...
The MSM went on the skids in the mid 60s. The Columbia School of Journalism attack dog mentality and "inestigative" reporting started them on a downhill slide and the takeover of the TV News by Entertainment Companies snowballed it.
The media decline is due to cluelss mediocrity, not to anti intellectualism. Anti intellectualism, in its turn, is due to an educational system that fails to educate the less well off 50% or so in this country. It's a national disgrace and the last 10 or so Administrations from both parties are guilty of allowing it to continue.
There are glimmers of hope but they're long overdue and will take years. Sad.
The K Codes explained HERE.
Overly complicated
(#5475)Seems like you're looking hard for exciting culture-war motivations for the declining circulation, when there's a much simpler, but sadly less dramatic reason available: a huge chunk of the nation's newspaper readers have internet access. Online news is much more current, leaves fewer black smudges on your hands, and is amenable to searching, bookmarking and pasting into emails.
The only bit of evidence you offer is the fact that the New York Post increased it's circulation a bit, but that's probably more to do with it's novelty than your admittedly more sensational explanation since other right-leaning papers have lost readers as well.
Your jabs at the Post are unsupported and otherwise besides the point. The reason for that suspicious and mystifying Webb endorsement? In their own words:
THE U.S. SENATE race in Virginia pits a novice politician, Democrat James Webb , against a much more experienced one, incumbent Republican George Allen, who spent much of the early fall obliterating his reputation for amiable charm and political deftness. As Mr. Allen has partially admitted, his wounds in the close race have been mostly self-inflicted and have left a sour taste in the mouths of many Virginians. Still, there is an even better reason to vote against Mr. Allen: Quite simply, he is a mediocre senator whose six years of undistinguished service do not justify rehiring.
His opponent -- former Navy secretary, former assistant defense secretary, former Marine Corps officer and former Republican -- is admirably independent-minded. He was prescient in warning, back in 2002, that the war in Iraq risked stranding the United States in a long-term occupation without an exit strategy. An intelligent man with a record of integrity, he has resisted the packaging of political consultants, which can only be a good thing. Those assets, as well as his deep familiarity with military and national security affairs, offer the promise that he would make an able, if unorthodox, U.S. senator. And the fact that his youngest son is deployed as a marine in Iraq gives him a perspective that is rare in today's Congress.
I'm sure some folks disagree with their logic, but I see no reason to think that this is why they're losing readers faster than I'm losing hair. Speaking of hair, you must be growing out the beard for the coming winter, since you've apparently consigned Occam's razor to your medicine cabinet.
"There are sneakers that cost more than an iPod." -Steve Jobs
As I understand it
(#5499)the word 'newspaper' implies the reporting of news.
For all your prattling about logic, you fall back on quoting the Post to refute my claims about Webb? If you actually read the Post, you would know that their campaign against Allen began long before that endorsement--in fact before Webb even came out of the woodwork to run. As for 'unsupported'--just what are you talking about here? That the Post doesn't devote an inordinate amount of space to local Muslims? It does. That it hasn't bought out the contracts of hundreds of staffers in the last few years? It has. You can't use facts to refute my argument--because you offer none. Only opinion, just like the monoliths you support.
The 'it's the Internet' excuse won't wash. The Post has assiduously courted every immigrant minority in the region for years, even MRing a Spanish edition. Yet their readership has slipped even among these groups. Are they all on the Internet? Not necessarily--many are listening to Spanish radio, watching Spanish TV, and reading--along with Muslims, Hindus, and Chinese--local weeklies printed by those communities. They are hungry for news.
Which is my point. Shame you don't get it. But then, neither does the Post.
I don't think they're all
(#5626)on the Internet, but enough to lead to an 8% reduction in circulation. The newspaper-reading public and the Internet-using public must have a pretty significant overlap, I'd think.
You're right that I shouldn't have gone on about Webb\Allen - I'm not trying to say that the Post doesn't have an agenda - I really don't know. What I am saying is that there's a simpler explanation for lost circulation than the idea that every major newspaper out there has alienated their readership.
When you have a hammer, I guess everything looks like a culture war. In this case, however, it seems very likely that the only culprit is the passage of time that has rendered newspapers anachronistic.
"There are sneakers that cost more than an iPod." -Steve Jobs
I think that your comment
(#5552)re the internet is correct. I'd only add that internet news outlets also free people to get current news on their own schedule. Today, you can skip the paper and electronic broadcast and browse the news online whenever you wish. It certainly isn't that the news is any "better" online (it is generally from the same sources), but it is much more convenient. Traditional newspapers still hold an edge for in-depth local coverage, arts and entertainment, etc. As a consequence, Sunday-only subscriptions remain popular in locales lacking competing papers.
I'm fairly sure that newspaper owners and publishers wish this was the result of some culture war, as that would be comparatively simple problem to remedy.
Agreed on all of that
(#5629)I love a big, thick Sunday paper with coupons and comics falling out the sides as much as the next guy.
"There are sneakers that cost more than an iPod." -Steve Jobs
Two things, first newspapers suck
(#5540)their quality and reliability has declined dramatically over the past decade. Either that or they always sucked and only now do we have the resources to check them. Either way, their credibility as a group is shot and so people are saying why bother.
The second point is that the NY Post is as much entertainment magazine as newspaper. I don't think it is doing better because it is righty or because it is better source of news, instead it is a source of different news.
I'm trying to make the best out of a bad situation. I don't need to hear crap from a bunch of hippie freaks living in denial! Screw you guys, I'm going home!
Circulation down but readers up
(#5746)The NYT has now more people reading its website than buy the physical newspaper, so if you are trying to measure the reach of the paper circulation figures are useless. I read 4 newspapers every day and they are all online (and I pay for 2 of them, the FT and the WSJ). The problem newspapers have is not that people are not interested in their output, it's that they need to find a better way to monetize that.
Newspapers remain very good businesses with margins greater than most Fortune 500 companies. If they can latch on the online advertising growth they will do quite well.
This place is my vacation.
People still want the news
(#5756)They're just less and less interested in the hunk of dead trees that it comes on.
I gave up my subscription to my local newspaper (Newsday) a few years ago. I got tired of throwing most of it out because I'd already read the news online.
I buy the paper now to read on the train or other places where there's no computer access. Once I get that PDA I've been eyeing (waiting for Dell to offer a deal on the X51v), I may never buy another newspaper again.
Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.