Don’t Mourn — Publish!
I took the time yesterday -- Sunday at lunch -- to sit down and acutally read as much as I could of The Los Angeles Times. And then I finished my appetizer and ordered the main dish. I was famished.
There was certainly some valuable reporting to be found. I repeat....some.
I found the most compelling pieces to be the longer and/or the more magaziney stuff. The truncated book review section. The truncated Opinion section. A couple of long feature stories that jumped from Page One.
But that's about it. There was no breaking news for me to read because I had already read it 12 or 18 before on the Web.
Sorry.
And while a few months ago I took the pro-Times side in a Times-sponsored online debate, I now have to officially announce that I am with bored with, done with, totally finished with any more grieving about the fate of the Times -- or any other newspaper for that matter. That includes the demise, announced today, of the dead-tree version of the Ann Arbor News.
As I wrote last month, I am completely convinced, indeed, I am certain that journalism will easily outlive the death of its current institutions. I'd much rather concentrate on what's here and what's coming rather than dwell on what has been.
I have also argued before that we are barely in the infancy of the digital revolution. In Byte Years, the so-called New Media is about 3 days old and anyone who claims to know exactly what is or what is not in the making is lying to you.
The printing press was invented to propagate the bible. Instead it produced the enlightenment. It took a couple of hundred years to mature, but history is much more patient than we are.
In that respect, I want to link to what I think is the most succinct argument yet to be published about the current AND IRREVERSIBLE decline of newspapers. A couple of commenters have posted the link in the comments section over the past few weeks.
But now it is time to move Clay Shirky's "Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable" to the front page. No coincidence that I have argued publicly in many of the same terms that Shirky uses in this spectacular essay. I assign his book, "Here Comes Everybody" as required reading to my graduate journalism classes. Here's the nut graph:
Fewer and fewer, but they are still out there -- deluding themselves that empowerment of "ordinary people" to actually publish will diminish instead of strengthen civil society. I don't think so. We are in a transitional moment. The old system is dead. The new is still struggling to be born. We should be rooting for the latter and not kvelling over the corpse of the former. While we're on the subject of The New. One more reminder to check out the fine work my students are doing at Neon Tommy. Co-editor Brian Frank has done a great multi-media piece on tomorrow's by-election for an open California Senate seat. Much more complete reporting on this issue of civic importance than anything I have seen in the Times.When someone demands to know how we are going to replace newspapers, they are really demanding to be told that we are not living through a revolution. They are demanding to be told that old systems won’t break before new systems are in place. They are demanding to be told that ancient social bargains aren’t in peril, that core institutions will be spared, that new methods of spreading information will improve previous practice rather than upending it. They are demanding to be lied to.
There are fewer and fewer people who can convincingly tell such a lie.
And while you're at it, show some support for a new generation of journalists by subscribing to the Neon Tommy Twitter feed and/or by joining our Neon Tommy Face Book group.
-------------- + --------------
Please subscribe to my Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/marc_cooper Watch my regular Video Blogs by subscribing at http://www.youtube.com/McooperTube or at http://www.vimeo.com/channels/35484
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Jack Lessenberry is amongst the most respected columnists in Michigan. Guess he’s a little slow to the revolution. Here’s his comments on the Free Press & News:
http://metrotimes.com/news/story.asp?id=13753
Ann Arbor News print collapse rippling toward other locals:
http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=14627
March 24th, 2009 at 8:20 am
whew. the avalanche of social networking gimmicks is the most sinister ploy yet to keep people at the pond scum level.
I mean for fucks sakes…TWITTER? I just watched the little info video on how it works and its purpose.
WHO GIVES A SHIT?
I understand its use for a group of people working on something to have an intersection. But now its gone from obsessive texting to Facebook, My Space, Twitter.
Will Self had a great throw away line: they need to invent a pill that makes people interested in things.
March 24th, 2009 at 8:33 am
http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2004/05/27/woman-racing-th.html
Do you remember the extraordinary early use of the blog back in 2003/4…the one of the lone Russian motorcyclist documenting her trip through the desolation of Chernobyl?
I just went to search it out and found the above link. I think you will find it interesting, Marc. The posters argue about issues of journalism and authenticity. And then just the whole argument about citizen reporters.
If you didn’t get wind of that story it was a phenomenal piece. Broken English and all made it that much more poignant.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:10 am
I, for one, am in mourning. And if LA were to go the route of Seattle or Rocky Mountain News, I would be crying. I wonder if Marc could go just one day without checking out the work of an American newspaper. Without them (and NPR), there is no real reporting left. Your Neon whatever and other online experiments are all well and good, but they have the same problem as newspapers. Who wants to pay for the time it takes to do solid reporting? Not most of us. A few blocks of web advertising is not going to take us to the promised land. Newspapers are really a public good and if the private market no longer finds the profits sufficient, then the workers or some public interest group should take them over – with State funding if need be. We can not let our rich journalistic heritiage to just crumble before our eyes like this. At least not until someone, somewhere shows us an alternative that does not leave out the millions with no access to the internet, or solves the revenue problem. To my knowledge all the noteworthy web-journalism experiments are being unsustainably funded by rich people, foundations or Universities.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:17 am
At some point, Marc, the bloggers will get their wish. The Los Angeles Times will die. What will take its place? It’s no mystery, really. The New York Times. The Wall Street Journal. The Orange County Register, or what remains of it. TV News, or what remains of it. KCRW. And Spanish language talk radio. These outlets will cherrypick the most marketable news. And what will be left by the wayside? This is no mystery either: The local beat reporting and governmental reporting that give all those eager bloggers something to link to and people like Marc here something to opine about. And don’t kid yourself that the kids at USC will have anything near the sophistication, commitment or experience to decipher the things that matter in City Hall or county government, or water policy, or transportation policy or any number of other critical issues in Southern California. Nor will the NYT bother with them. Nor will the single issue gadflies. This isn’t about whether the LAT entertains Californians. It’s about whether anyone will bother to inform them once there’s no money in it. And that answer is: of course not.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Nice piece, Marc. I agree.
I had no idea that it was your students producing Neon Tommy. I’ve been a fan of the site since it launched — loved the piece about the cops not calling the cell numbers in their own crime report, for one example — so it’s nice to see you’re involved.
Keep rocking.
mm
March 24th, 2009 at 11:55 am
They are demanding to be lied to.
That references “what” — not “why.”
We can agree that newspapers are dying. However, the lessons of why, if applied to any medium, will result in the same thing — a dead company.
In my view, it’s not the speed of the information that pulls people away from newspapers, but it’s the content–i.e., ignoring what the customers want.
One of the primary area of content over which people have gotten sick is that of left-wing bias, so customers moved to alternate sources. It’s not just papers. Also, consider CBS News (fake but accurate), MSNBC, and PBS. Do you think that I want to pay for content from information sources regularly featured at ,a href=”http://newsbusters.org/”>this site?
So, Marc. It’s one thing to teach your students to change with the times. It’s another thing to teach them to pay attention to the customer and provide something for which the market will be willing to pay.
In my area, backing socialists and communists does not sell a lot of papers. However, conservative talk radio is doing quite well here and throughout the nation.
If you can’t provide what the customer wants, in this case content, then you need to adapt or go into another business…or, the customers will force you.
It’s no wonder that newpaper staffs seem to hate free market capitalism. No wonder they are demanding their bailouts. Let ‘em die and let their left-wing internet attempts dig their own graves, too.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:56 am
When the argument is made, as it often is, that daily newspapers are the only source with great depth, I wonder whether those comments come from anyone who has read anything besides The New York Times. In Las Vegas, the Review-Journal is no longer the dead tree of record so much as a shrub, but it never did much in depth. And The Los Angeles Times used to provide in-depth coverage, but I don’t see that very much any more.
In some ways, the fall of newspapers may lead to the rise of the internet and the blog. Some blogs are excellent. Some are just excuses to mouth off. Marc, you do fine commentary here, and some of it may show up in different form elsewhere. But what is stopping journalists from starting sites, getting ads going, and doing some real reporting, other than the seeming stain on their reputation? Are they that worried about maintaining a reputation with their colleagues?
Actually, yes, and that is a big part of the problem. When Howard Fineman does a piece for Newsweek’s site saying, basically, Obama may be popular but he has to win over the DC establishment, you know a lot that is wrong with journalism today.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Woody, if journalism was about “giving people what they want” and adherence to market principles, then we’d have a thousand US Weekly’s or People Magazines masquerading as newspapers. That is we’d have entertainment news supplanting real news. The only political news we’d have would make the sensationalism on FOX or MSNBC look restrained. The result would not be good for democracy or our future.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
av2ts: …if journalism was about “giving people what they want” and adherence to market principles, then…the result would not be good for democracy or our future.
It sounds like you’re buying into Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to have government prop up left-wing papers with taxpayer money. Your conclusion is a judgment that goes contrary to history and opinons of others.
A free press is always available to people, but a free press doesn’t have a right to demand that people buy their nonsense or support it with tax money–unless it’s PBS, unfortunately.
I’ve learned a lot of helpful and accurate information from FOX that other major media ignored for ideological reasons. I don’t always have to agree with sources, but I have to trust them to be completely honest.
So, let’s swing the discussion from “content” to “trust.” Biased content results from not respecting the trust of the public.
I wouldn’t mind content in any direction as long as the source is trustworthy. The news shouldn’t twist, lie, or hide infomation. Once they do and are caught, the marriage is over. It’s like the old saying — Cheat me once – shame on you! Cheat me twice – shame on me!
The moral lesson is better. I hope Marc shares that in his classes.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
The market speaks on what it wants and is willing to pay for the LAT. From the comments in Marc’s link:
#3 If the Times actually offered “generally reliable, mostly accurate” news, they wouldn’t be in the trouble they are in. …you don’t offer enough to anybody to justify the price….
Shortened Comment – “I don’t trust you.”
March 24th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
IRONY ALERT !!!!!!
Guess Who – “I wouldn’t mind content in any direction as long as the source is trustworthy. The news shouldn’t twist, lie, or hide infomation.”
I can skip the Daily Show for my yucks this afternoon.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Micahel Green wrote: “… But what is stopping journalists from starting sites, getting ads going, and doing some real reporting, …”
I made the same point when Marc first raised this whole spectre of dying hard copy.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Paul Waldman has a good “quasi-old fart” piece at American Prospect:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=can_a_click_replace_a_glance
March 24th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Well, the hell with ‘SC, but I have to send kudos to you and your students.
The site is well done and a piece of the future model.
Very nice going, all the way around.
Newspapers.
Done.
Outmoded.
Dead business plan, which includes; who, what, when, where and why.
W’s of journalism.
Long gone and not even needed to be edited.
Just visit Detroit.
When ya use up all of your capital AND borrow beyond belief, while producing what will not be purchased……..whaddya get?
Well written and conveyed post.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
“The only political news we’d have would make the sensationalism on FOX or MSNBC look restrained. The result would not be good for democracy or our future.”
Are you saying the LATimes, like the NYTimes, reporters/journalists are not biased liberal av2ts, and by extension they’re news or news they choose to report on,?
I think it is obvious both are biased and not good for democracy. I also think it is one more reason , besides internet access to news, they are failing.. They’re obvious bias has removed 50% of their potential readers in a politically divided country.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
But what is stopping journalists from starting sites, getting ads going, and doing some real reporting
Probably because journalists want to earn a decent, stable living. They probably also want a pension and health care. Nothing is stopping those who don’t care about these things. But any reporter worth their salt deserves some basic dignity in their life. The ads one puts on the side of one’s blog might give someone a few hundred dollars a week, if they are successful, but not any semblence of long-term security.
Are you saying the LATimes, like the NYTimes, reporters/journalists are not biased liberal av2ts, and by extension they’re news or news they choose to report on?
Every reporter and every institution has its bias. Pretending like we can remove bias is pointless. Newspapers are supposed to be rigorous in being free of bias because they have a unique responsibility to the public (usually being the only game in town). For the most part, they “suceeed” in this regard by presenting the standard liberal and conservative sides of an issue. In the US, this means that actually only a very narrow range of opinion is allowed in to the debate. Almost all of it is pro-capitalism and pro-US Imperialism. Study after study shows that the majority of sources are business-oriented or come from a handful of right-oriented think tanks. I don’t doubt that a majority of reporters lean “liberal” but they work hard to make sure that stays hidden – mostly by erring on the side of the free-market and US Imperialism.
I, like Woody, have no problem with being open about one’s bias. I think we are moving in this direction. My only fear is that real reporting gets sidelined in the need to cut costs and that the desire to find audiences by segmenting viewers/readers will lead to a dumbing down of reporting. There is the other problem of minority views getting lost in the shuffle. That is inherent in any free-market based model.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
reg: I can skip the Daily Show for my yucks this afternoon.
Then, don’t miss this: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal will again carry the Republican mantle opposite a primetime appearance from President Obama on Tuesday.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
How the NYT is improving its content:
NYTimes.com leads with user-gen content
During tough times, the paper leverages reader base to produce content.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Woody, Tucker Carlson raised the question of “trust” of news sources when he spoke as one of Limbaugh’s opening acts at the ConCon a couple of weeks back. Carlson pointed out that you could disagree with NYT’s politics, and he does, but that you couldn’t challenge its trustworthiness as a news source.
Of course the bobbing ditto-heads hissed and booed. But unless and until someone can demonstrate that NYT is permitting its politics to permeate its reporting, and Carlson believes that in NYT’s case it has not, then it remains the “newspaper of record.” His point, I believe, was that no right-leaning source had established such fundamental credibility.
What’s that, Rupert?
March 24th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
MC: NYT’s politics, and he does, but that you couldn’t challenge its trustworthiness as a news source.
MC, that statement is wrong on so many levels.
But unless and until someone can demonstrate that NYT is permitting its politics to permeate its reporting,…
Apparently, Tucker Carlson must be getting that information from the NYT itself.
As an example: The Times refuses to recognize the connection between Islam and worldwide terrorism. That’s not a side issue unworthy of mention.
Most of the time, the NYT emphsizes certain anti-conservative stories above the fold on page one and ignores similar problems with liberals.
Truth is beyond saying this statement is right or that one is wrong. When the paper is selective with stories, where it places them, and how it words them — simply for pushing its liberal agenda — then it is NOT trustworthy.
Right-leaning sources exist, but mainly to provide the truth that the “newpaper of record” was supposed to do but failed.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Image – New York Times
March 24th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
One more…here we go!
U.S. bill seeks to rescue faltering newspapers
If this passes, newspapers will be as dead as passenger trains — like AMTRAK! In other words, they will survive at a high cost to the public and will live long beyond their usefulness.
March 24th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Just so that no one thinks that I believe the NYT is trustworthy, here’s another who agrees with me in this fair and balanced article:
March 24th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Michael Wolff has an animus towards the Times. A case in point in his biography on Rupert Murdoch he made the claim that the Times canceled a series on Murdoch after two articles due to pressure from News Corp, when in fact only two articles were scheduled.
He also is pissed at the Times because they wrote him an angry letter when he used their logo on his Newswer website.
Woody also elided this quote from another media critic in the article, Slate’s Jack Shafer:
Always best to show the whole picture.
March 24th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
The notion that we should even engage this homophobic, racist moron – who compulsively publishes links here to rightwing crackpots spreading the most transparent disinformation – on the quality of the New York Times is absurd. This clown couldn’t separate good reporting from Orwellian garbage if his life depended on it – in fact he has no interest in anything but the most rancid propaganda.
Here’s an example from one of his links today:
“This column will explain why The New York Times has probably killed more people than Hitler.”
The resident moron isn’t just incredibly inept intellectually – he’s a moral cretin. Racist to the core and perched here – compulsively pounding away – solely to get attention due to some sever neurosis and to disrupt rational discourse.
Total fucking piece of shit. And that verdict is being kind…
March 24th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Following on Randy, here’s the conclusion of the VF article that Woody acknowledges is “fair and balanced” –
“Perhaps it comes back to envy and resentment. As much as the Times’s influence is dwindling, many smart alecks on the Web would kill to have a tiny fraction of the paper’s prestige and power, and they may think (erroneously, one suspects) that they could wield it better than the current occupants of Renzo Piano’s climber-friendly Eighth Avenue tower.
“Carr puts it this way, borrowing from Ralph Waldo Emerson: ‘The reflexive, baked-in desire to constantly take apart the Times is, I think, the hobgoblin of underemployed and understimulated minds.’ Not that there’s anything wrong with that…”
I am a critic of the Times in many respects, but not at the puerile level dishonestly pawned off here by resident moron. I have a funny feeling Woody didn’t read the whole article – sort of like the Telegraph piece he linked to the other day that completely refuted his idiotic assertion if you actually read the column to the end. We’re dealing with a very limited attention span here – I’d say about a third-grade level of comprehension, linked to the kind of rampant bitterness and blindered paranoia one finds only in a very calcified, very old “Dead Man Walking” cracker from the closed ranks of certain Deep South white reactionary enclaves.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:18 am
Randy, I could have been more selective in choosing a Wolff article just to support my contention, but I did say that it was “fair and balanced” for any who wanted to go further. There were plenty of one-sided articles, and they would explains Wolff’s dispute with the NYT better than you did. Those in the linked article who disagree with me are not looking at the NYT objectively. How can one overlook its immense bias?
- – -
And, reg, I did read the entire article. Next time, if you prefer, I’ll not choose one that gives both sides.
In any event, you typically pull out your phony elitist analysis and expose to me that you really don’t understand the depth of subjects–particularly those related to economics and accountng. That explains why you resort to calling me names rather than present a scholarly alternate position. On the other hand, any position opposite of mine cannot be scholarly.
Rather than reading the entire link from a Wharton School professor with many other credentials, you presented his attention-grabbing first line without presenting his explanation, which wasn’t wrong. Others can read beyond the first line and see why he is correct.
If you had taken debate in college, or even gone to college, you would have learned that slinging mud at the other side doesn’t win points from the judges. It’s easy to conclude that you have nothing of substance.
- – -
To both of you, since you didn’t address these points, I guess it’s perfectly okay that the NYT downplays terrorism and the Islamic connection and that the Democrats are proposing taxpayer life-support for papers that should die.
- – -
Well, I guess it’s that time of day to go upset some nigra homo. Oh, wait. I just did.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Woody,
You routinely cite Newsmax, Newsbusters and Worldnet Daily. You have no credibility accusing others of bias.
I have also had issues with the Times. Their former Rio corrspondent, Larry Rohter is an idiot. Maureen Dowd is nuts and over the years I’ve had numerous issues and criticisms on my blog with their coverage in Latin America and other areas. Even Roger Cohen, a columnist who I know casually, I have had issues with.
To both of you, since you didn’t address these points, I guess it’s perfectly okay that the NYT downplays terrorism and the Islamic connection and that the Democrats are proposing taxpayer life-support for papers that should die.
You’re assuming facts not in evidence. You look for validation and confirmation of your pov and that’s it.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Well, Randy, you picked a weak point on which to respond and left the meat of the issue sitting there with no objections.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Woody – I don’t give a shit about accounting on a general basis because it’s such a small-time, boring occupation at your level of practice. What I DO get upset by is when corporate crooks are allowed to sodomize the profession – with some major accounting firms obviously willingly go along with it – and make up a whole new set of rules (so-called “mark-to-model”) that are designed precisely because they are so inherently opague and easy to abuse. A minor-league bean-counter such as yourself proved not even able to carry on a discussion with a layman about the problem with this “accounting” procedure. You’re some combination of ignorant and chickenshit. When you finally linked to a Yale Professor, his discussion of “mark-to-model” verified my point. And your description of my reference to what he wrote is further evidence that if you read your links, you don’t necessarily comprehend them. I didn’t “grab his first liine” but a key poiint that was part of his conclusion on the topic and the essence of how this method leads to abuse. Once more, you’re just making stuff up with no reference to reality.
Bottom line – You’re invariably the most tiresome, boring, ill-informed person in these comments. And you’ve got the morals of a slug – racist, bigoted and rather shockingly dishonest. But, of course, all of this begs the questions I’m sure most readers of this blog ask when you perennially get caught in your own bullshit – What else is new and who cares ?
March 25th, 2009 at 11:47 am
About NYT’s purported refusal to “recognize the connection between Islam and worldwide terrorism,” your link to an article that adopts w/o question the blog posts of some guy named Feder merely criticizes NYT’s editorial choice to call the Mumbai bombers “bombers” or “terrorists,” not “Muslim bombers” or “Muslim terrorists.”
How is that “refusal to recognize a connection?” NYT didn’t say “male bombers” or “uneducated bombers” or “bombers born under the sign of Leo.” That doesn’t mean there isn’t a connection or the paper doesn’t recognize one. A truly “fair and balanced” news source might well conclude that such a connection belongs on the editorial/op-ed pages, not in reportage.
In fact, your arguments and those to which you link demonstrate that the “boycotters” are not looking for fairness in reporting, but rather bias and opinion they agree with.
Finally, I do not “recognize” in my remarks concerning your posts that you are a white male who grew up in a state populated by the descendants of the exiled criminals who founded the state, who rejected the United States and tried to establish a renegade nation, and when that didn’t work, banned all descendants of African blood from drinking from the same drinking fountains as the favored white sons and daughters of aforementioned criminals and traitors.
Doesn’t mean it’s not so…doesn’t mean it escapes my attention.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
On topic: ‘AJC’ to Eliminate 30% of News Staff
- – -
Off topic: reg, where were you when the Mark-to-Model was being assessed and approved? Give me your thesis on this and I might waste more time with you. Until then, you’re a latecomer still harping on Enron and old news with no background on the subject.
Also, I have worked for KPMG and PwC, so I’ve been there and, beleive me, there is nothing so boring as to be forced to be so specialized that you do the same thing over and over and over and over — and you’re owned by the firm and have to put up with the politics. I’m happy, and that’s what’s important — not your approval.
But, guess what! I’m meeting with a manager from Ernst & Young tonight, because I do her tax returns! She could do it, someone in her firm could do it, but she and her husband know me and know that I’m good at this. If anything would be boring, it would be doing your 1040-A — if you make enough to require a return.
You might want to quit reading and responding to my comments, as you have sworn to do before, or you can continue and continue to look stupid with your lame attacks.
- – -
On topic: MC, sorry that I didn’t link all of the google entries about the NYT bias and how they want to be so politically correct that they can’t bring themselves to connect Islam and terrorism. I thought one might be enough, but you’re welcome to check other sources. Here’s another one for you to ignore.
It amazes me that you think that the adjectives male, uneducated, and Leo’s are just as important as the religious affilitation of the terrorists, which is their basis for their hate and murders.
Also, I might mention that we have a game called “Guess the Party,” whenever there is an article in the liberal media about a politician who is out of line. If the politician is a Republican, then that is clearly mentioned up front. If no party is mentioned, then it’s a Democrat. The party must be important to mention it sometimes, so why not all the time?
Off topic: Now, MC, on your other point about my ancestry, I don’t understand why you brought that up. Perhaps, you’re confusing my arguments with those of reg, which are based entirely on mud slinging. Nevertheless, here is some related information.
I am not originally from Georgia. My family did not settle in Georgia. My ancestors were among those who first came to America for religious freedom in the late 1600′s, and they were there at Valley Forge to make freedom possible for you.
On the idea of rejecting the U.S., the southern states were the ones being rejected by the rest of the union. Tariffs brought on by the populus northern states were enacted on products from the south so that the northern states could cut out the European market and get the goods cheaper. Oh, it didn’t matter to the northern consumers that those goods were made by slaves–just that they could get them more cheaply.
The southern states were not kept in a union by the Constitution but by force. From a legal standpoint, I think that every state which seceded was within its rights. I’m looking forward to the day that California, New York, and Massachuttes leave the union. and quit bankrupting the rest of the country with their programs.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
No Woody, I just call them as I see them and I know the difference between an opinion and a fact.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Woody, you couldn’t do my job in a million years. Earth to Woody – you’re doing people’s taxes. You’re an annoying little jerk and a bore.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
reg, we didn’t know that you had a real job, but I can’t imagine it being very honorable or paying very much.
Let me assure you, I can do any job that I set my mind to do and doesn’t involve low morals, as yours must. Obviously my genes are more favorable than yours.
My work doing taxes serves the nation and the taxpayers–and, they pay well for that. Your work apparently serves some fool who doesn’t mind wasting money.
Since you insist on calling names, you’re a crude, uneducated, infantile, pseudo-elitist whose only arguments consist of cursing at others rather than presenting logical and intelligent points. Sad.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Woody, I see. Your people chose to move to the state founded by criminals and that required darker people to use different facilities from lighter people. As for why I mentioned it, the post explained it.
Your new link again misses the point. The article you post is about an OP-ED, not news. If one wants to attack a newspaper for the opinions it allows to be printed on its op-ed page (by definition, opinions the newpaper does not endorse…that it may or may not agree with), well, it’s foolish, but OK. But articles printed on the op-ed page–no matter what the paper—have nothing to do with bias in the reporting of news.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:40 am
MC: When someone continues to demand proof that the NYT has a liberal bias because he can’t see it, then I consider that person beyond all hope.
BTW, before I moved to Atlanta, the “darker people” had already taken it over. There’s a reason that truckers refer to I-285 circling Atlanta as the “ring around the Congo.”
March 26th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Good News from the NYT!
Layoffs At New York Times (NYT)
March 26th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Woody rejoices when people lose their jobs. Typical Republican stance.