A document obtained today by this reporter reveals that right-wing Texas billionaire brothers Charles and Bill Koch, rumored for months to be planning a takeover of the venerable Los Angeles Times, are secretly detailing changes they intend to make after they assume control.
Can there be any question that, as the newspaper fades, we're entering a new age of conglomerated mainstream chaos? You only needed to check out the "coverage" of the Boston Marathon bombing aftermath.
Will it do for journalists and editors to remain thoroughly tangled up in their own remarkably unquestioned assumptions about what constitutes news? It's long past time to reconsider some journalistic conventions.
The nation -- or should I say the USA -- lost a very important figure in journalism's evolving story this past weekend.
This is a summary of a chapter by the author in "Media and Information Literacy and Intercultural Dialogue" edited by Ulla Carlsson and Sherri Hope Cu...
History shows that if conservative papers weren't subsidized by deep-pocketed owners, they would fail in a free market. By contrast, at least until the current paradigm shift from print to online, newspapers dismissed as "liberal" had generally been thriving -- many of them under publicly owned companies.
In the heyday of New York's tabloid journalism, when newsrooms were boys' clubs and you could smoke and swear with impunity, the best reporters were on a mission to right wrongs. For these power-to-the-people crusaders, the 1980s and '90s were a hellava time.
There is no greater story in sports than Robinson breaking baseball's color line on April 15, 1947. Yet there was little sense of that history that day in the sports pages of daily newspapers, even in New York City.
Roger Ebert's voice was bold, honest, logical, brilliant, decent, kind, hilarious, all the things our voices long to be when they grow up. Ebert has left the aisle seat, but the truth remains the eternal truth.
Sadly, I don't think it will necessarily be printing costs that lead to their ultimate demise. As long as metro dailies remain "masters of none," the specialists will continue to siphon-off their readers and their revenue.
Less news = smaller audience = less profit.
Pew worries that newsmakers are more adept at putting their message out without reliance on "any filter by the traditional media." I'm not sure the "filter" of the traditional media is a good thing. Or if it is, the burden is on Pew to show how and why.
It was pretty evident that at the end of that time frame we would have to pay to have the convenience of a TV schedule at our fingertips, rather than running to our computer to see what was on the tube.
If the Washington Post does not start thinking and acting like a national paper, it will die the inevitable death of a regional one.
Over the years, and many incarnations, the Herald Examiner excelled at covering local news, catering more to the "man on the street," and was also a huge fan of sensational stories.
Newspapers aren't even going the way of airlines, nickel and diming us for what we came to expect. They've simply eliminated a lot of the content from what we're paying for or making us spend time hunting online for stuff which was once right in front of us.