Letters to the Editor
-
Proximity Scarecrow:
Well, it’s no great achievement to be highly rated on the low-rated MSNBC,
-- Proximity Warning
So then you think MSNBC is just a hobby rather than a money making venture for the National Broadcasting Company, and the Microsoft Network?
-
Proximity Warning:
But it's not always circulation numbers. Advertisers pay if important people read and are influenced by the magazine or website .
The Weekly Standard suffers losses that are subsidized by News Corp. National Review has to beg for money in order to meet their basic budget. Why would that be? Isn't there a great big market for them?
And it is possible to compare total audience, since both TWS and NR have a significant web presence. Combine their circulation numbers with their online readership- how does that compare to Salon's total readership (which is neither subsidized nor reliant on "donations" to survive)? Do you know, or were you just spouting things without having any idea if they're true.
Also - how odd that you would cite the large audiences of network news shows to prove some point. Aren't those all "liberal"?
-
The Most Trusted Name in News
Glenn: our family has this running joke. We sit down to dinner, watch the Blitz talking about his most trusted team and laugh. Then its over to BBC. We wonder how Bush, and John King when he appears occasionally, can say this with a straight face. Its silly, its demeaning and it shows how far down the road to Foxitis CNN has gone. I think these poor fellows are obliged to keep repeating this mantra just to reassure themselves while Lou Dobbs and the President of CNN News continue their shouting match. Dobbs wants to claim that his is the most objective news in America.
-
A Big Mac of Stoopid
McDonald's is the most "popular" eating establishment in the US. Does that mean the food is good?
Please remember, you're dealing with the reality based community here, and therefore at a distinct disadvantage.
-
Sorry
I meant Blitz not Bush. Apologies. On second thoughts Bush's heads the Most Trusted Government in the World. There!
-
PW
Nobody is expecting you to invest in Salon. On the other hand, the free market system does not require that one attack things that do not make a profit.
-
I agree with shooter on this one
the Clintons have gotten just as much softball press coverage as McCain. I't s just that the Clintons, if the press does ask probing questions---either claims the questions or questioner are sexist or deflects the question to throw off on Barack Obama. Has Hil answered yet to why she authorized IWR, or not read the NIE? Has she answered to why she thought LBJ finished the job or was "needed" by MLK-to african Americans?
No, what you get are tears about how 'Hard" it's been for ther after losing the Iowa caucus, having very few weeks to prepare for NH. What you hear is the press is "mean" for turning away her bagel/muffin bribes after years of not giving interviews to the press...So shooter, yes I agree, the questions will be softballs.
It was disgusting what was done to McCain at K Roves' hands in SC. Perhaps that's why the press is giving him softballs-either the "establishment" of the GOP has already decided who they want the nominee to be-hence softball qustioning of said nominees.They know since the rest of the GOP field is wide-open and Romney and Guiliani are flops with the public-the Huck scares the hell out of them,so they give McCain the fluff treatment. The GOP has always been more like a monarchy in deciding thier candidates---in amount of ass-kissing to the blue-blood establishment/corporate powers that be(within the media who also have stakes in war-profitting)to family lineage.
Like racehorse breeders-they consider only thier own blood to be worthy of leading a country-or having the power. It galls them to think "little people" could actually ask intelligent questions or have priorities-or such questions are not important anyhow-it's THIER agenda that matters..
So "softball questions"? thats' not just random-it's by design.
-
King
That interview is doubly disturbing as the pundits are currently going through a small twitch of soul searching, e.g., Brokaw's comments to Matthews, a post at Politico, and the whole "we got it so wrong" chest-beating in New Hampshire. But they really melt in front of McCain. Where is Dan Rather when we need him?
-
All things in perspective, or The Song Remains The Same
I commented previously that it seemed as if the political corpse of McCain, like El Cid, was being hoisted upon his charger, and his sword tied upright in his hand, to head the hapless army into a battle that would turn a rout into victory.
-- Little Brother
In my pseudonym's defense, his most heroic accomplishments (best evidence seems to be that he actually died peacefully in Valencia, not strapped to his horse as a heroic, troop-leading corpse) were those which took place in an impressively well-composed poetic drama which has been sung and then read for many centuries, as opposed to those which did or did not occur on the battlefield.
As with McCain, it's more about the myth than the reality which does, or does not, ground the man.
If centuries from now we are still singing "The Super-Awesome Ballad of Maverick John McCain," complete with stories of how he bravely defied his President by agreeing with him, and how he single-handedly took on the fifth column media by accepting their praise and adulation, then the art will have succeeded him.
The University of Texas, by the way, has an outstanding multimedia presentation about El Cantar del Mio Cid, allowing one to read and hear the song / poem in a variety of languages and formats.
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/cid/
-
@Greenwald
“The Weekly Standard suffers losses that are subsidized by News Corp. National Review has to beg for money in order to meet their basic budget. Why would that be? Isn't there a great big market for them?”
And The Nation didn’t turn a profit in years. Political journals are not big business, but since you bought them up so I thought I might as well educate you on the numbers.
“And it is possible to compare total audience, since both TWS and NR have a significant web presence. Combine their circulation numbers with their online readership- how does that compare to Salon's total readership (which is neither subsidized nor reliant on "donations" to survive)? Do you know, or were you just spouting things without having any idea if they're true.”
I think a more pertinent and comparable number would be the paid subscribers. It's not an exact comparison because those numbers I quoted aren't paid circulation. But either way, receiving a magazine or subscribing implies a greater commitment than coming to a website. I come to Salon, but I wouldn’t pay for it or want it posted to me. According to these guys:
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/070627/slnm.ob10-k.html
“Prior to March 2007, subscriptions to Salon Premium were generally $35 for one year with no ads, and during March 2007, the rate was increased to $45. Salon Premium revenue is recognized ratably over the period that services are provided. This source of revenue has been decreasing since Salon's quarter ended December 31, 2004 when paid subscriptions peaked at approximately 89,100 and decreased to approximately 47,200 as of March 31, 2007. Salon expects this downward trend to continue, as it is placing greater emphasis on its advertising sales to generate revenue.”
“Also - how odd that you would cite the large audiences of network news shows to prove some point. Aren't those all "liberal"?”
I’m not the one criticizing the main news networks. My point is if Americans were truly as up-in-arms are you are about fluffy questions to politicians and a failure to advance the kind of agenda you want, we would expect the ratings for these bastions of complacency to be considerably lower.