This just sucks. And the NY Times killed it.
http://www.forbes.com/media/2008/10/07/nyt...ea_1007iht.html
There's your big media consolidation. Kill it because it "only" reached 2.5 million people.
this is the second most dumbassed move the Times has made. The first one was the decision to put their Op-Ed columnists behind the subscription firewall. Way to gut your own influence. I used to read the times every day. Not since they did that.
Full Version: Well we just lost the online version of a GOOD paper
QUOTE (5by5 @ Oct 7 2008, 06:01 PM) 
This just sucks. And the NY Times killed it.
http://www.forbes.com/media/2008/10/07/nyt...ea_1007iht.html
There's your big media consolidation. Kill it because it "only" reached 2.5 million people.
this is the second most dumbassed move the Times has made. The first one was the decision to put their Op-Ed columnists behind the subscription firewall. Way to gut your own influence. I used to read the times every day. Not since they did that.
http://www.forbes.com/media/2008/10/07/nyt...ea_1007iht.html
There's your big media consolidation. Kill it because it "only" reached 2.5 million people.
this is the second most dumbassed move the Times has made. The first one was the decision to put their Op-Ed columnists behind the subscription firewall. Way to gut your own influence. I used to read the times every day. Not since they did that.
They should sell ad space on their website.
QUOTE (5by5 @ Oct 7 2008, 07:01 PM)
This just sucks...
What's the big deal just another stupid news website that like hardly anyone knows anything about...I mean like how much news do you need? And a lot of these moronic blogs don't even tell you who their sources are on stories that are so whacky that only a looney tune could believe them. Of course none of the stupid news sites ever run enough videos which the way I like to get my news, IMHO all this reading and everything is a big waste of time.
All we really need are the following websites:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com
http://www.slate.com
http://www.pollster.com
http://www.realclearpolitics.com
http://pundits.thehill.com
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com
http://www.rasmussenreports.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com
http://www.nydailynews.com
http://blogs.abcnews.com
http://www.americablog.com
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com
http://online.wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com
http://dyn.politico.com
These are the sites that Randi uses mostly lately and it's more than I can stand to read but she oughta know if they are like ok cuz after all she's the one who coined the phrase "the news has been canceled." Besides since Randi's already read them all I have to do is listen to Randi and then I can be like totally informed and groom my cat at the same time. It's that simple.
And this one:
http://www.sinisterblog.com
What? No, nothing to see here. No shameless self-promotion...hey, look at that thing over there!
http://www.sinisterblog.com
What? No, nothing to see here. No shameless self-promotion...hey, look at that thing over there!
QUOTE (5by5 @ Oct 7 2008, 06:01 PM)
This just sucks. And the NY Times killed it.
http://www.forbes.com/media/2008/10/07/nyt...ea_1007iht.html
There's your big media consolidation. Kill it because it "only" reached 2.5 million people.
this is the second most dumbassed move the Times has made. The first one was the decision to put their Op-Ed columnists behind the subscription firewall. Way to gut your own influence. I used to read the times every day. Not since they did that.
http://www.forbes.com/media/2008/10/07/nyt...ea_1007iht.html
There's your big media consolidation. Kill it because it "only" reached 2.5 million people.
this is the second most dumbassed move the Times has made. The first one was the decision to put their Op-Ed columnists behind the subscription firewall. Way to gut your own influence. I used to read the times every day. Not since they did that.
Art imitates life and in turn, life imitates art.
If this was not pulled straight out of the 5th and (sadly) final season of the acclaimed HBO series, The Wire then I'll eat my hat.
Of course, the storyline in The Wire centered around a very real Baltimore Sun but the message was more a indictment of the media consolidation in the entire industry (with a great look into what drives the company to push questionable material in an effort to "win" a Pulitzer).
Still though, what is the recourse? If America is unwilling to pay the price for top notch journalism and private foundation's can be a corrupting influence, do you want the Government to pay to keep these news outlets open? To much at stake when you are to investigate the very groups you are relying on to pay your salary.
QUOTE (who @ Oct 8 2008, 09:56 AM)
What's the big deal just another stupid news website that like hardly anyone knows anything about...I mean like how much news do you need?
If you don't know what the International Herald Tribune is, then how can I even have a conversation about it with you? You don't even know what's been lost. What a shame you missed out.
And what pisses me off about it is that it's not like the damn thing was operating in the red. This is a solid paper that Americans rely on all over the world, but this corporate obsession with relentless growth means you can't simply be as profitable as you were last year, or God forbid simply break even. You have to be growing, growing, growing, and that's just not sustainable in ANYTHING.
Relentless growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell.
QUOTE (5by5 @ Oct 8 2008, 06:47 PM)
You have to be growing, growing, growing, and that's just not sustainable in ANYTHING.
Relentless growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell.
Relentless growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell.
Odd, I would have thought that education and compassion were both sustainable through life long growth. I guess I have more to learn.
what a pickle
Even with learning, you need to empty your cup occasionally.
QUOTE (5by5 @ Oct 8 2008, 07:47 PM)
If you don't know what the International Herald Tribune is, then how can I even have a conversation about it with you? You don't even know what's been lost. What a shame you missed out.
And what pisses me off about it is that it's not like the damn thing was operating in the red. This is a solid paper that Americans rely on all over the world, but this corporate obsession with relentless growth means you can't simply be as profitable as you were last year, or God forbid simply break even. You have to be growing, growing, growing, and that's just not sustainable in ANYTHING.
Relentless growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell.
And what pisses me off about it is that it's not like the damn thing was operating in the red. This is a solid paper that Americans rely on all over the world, but this corporate obsession with relentless growth means you can't simply be as profitable as you were last year, or God forbid simply break even. You have to be growing, growing, growing, and that's just not sustainable in ANYTHING.
Relentless growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell.
What's wrong with taking all the crummy little newspapers and making, like, one big really good newspaper? Not that I'd ever waste my time reading it...I mean, like, have you ever tried to read the Sunday New York Times...it's eumongous! Does anyone ever, like, really read it? Wouldn't it be better to get everything on videos that I can, like, upload into my IPhone and watch whenever I want to know what's happening?
QUOTE (5by5 @ Oct 7 2008, 07:01 PM)
This just sucks. And the NY Times killed it.
http://www.forbes.com/media/2008/10/07/nyt...ea_1007iht.html
There's your big media consolidation. Kill it because it "only" reached 2.5 million people.
this is the second most dumbassed move the Times has made. The first one was the decision to put their Op-Ed columnists behind the subscription firewall. Way to gut your own influence. I used to read the times every day. Not since they did that.
http://www.forbes.com/media/2008/10/07/nyt...ea_1007iht.html
There's your big media consolidation. Kill it because it "only" reached 2.5 million people.
this is the second most dumbassed move the Times has made. The first one was the decision to put their Op-Ed columnists behind the subscription firewall. Way to gut your own influence. I used to read the times every day. Not since they did that.
That is a real shame. The International Herald-Tribune was often the only English-language paper I could find in Egypt when I was travelling there.
Not very many people may have subscribed, but it was a great resource for international travellers who wanted to keep up with news at home.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.