Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
How again did you keep your job after getting caught stealing wine from QFC?
And has way more people checking it out?
Look, fighting the good fight is all well and good, but you work in MEDIA. Deal with it.
Instead, they should have chosen to keep hard journalism distinct from tabloid. Of course there would be fewer customers, but the customers they had would remain. People WILL PAY FOR QUALITY.
Now, you may have to run a tight ship and forgo some potential profit, but in the long run, it will not only be sustainable but also a societal benefit.
The newspapers were too greedy. Now we have very little real journalism but plenty of tabloid/blogosphere reporting.
As a consumer, I'd like to be able to say - "Oh well, the market will provide," except it won't. There's no substitute for real journalism emerging in the online world - just tons of unlicensed hacks spewing their opinions in blogs.
Not that print is a panacea. Lawsuits, legal rulings (Valerie Plame), pressure to turn a profit, etc. have all undermined the provision of reporting in the public interest.
So Ellison is right in a way. Most people want the half-naked celebs. *sigh*
Erica, are you saying you won't read these guys because they have a penis? Because that would make you a man-hating sexist.
You should just unleash sometime and write a long post called "I really hate men and here's why". It would be a better read than most of your stuff.
I'm leaving now to visit the PI site, something I had no intention of doing before I saw that picture and something I've not done in two weeks. So yeah, worked on me.
Newspaper content has always been *basically* free. Circulation revenue was never a profit center. It doesn't even begin to pay for the cost of printing and delivering a paper. And you won't get people to pay more money for a less premium experience (viewing it on a screen) as Savage has said here before.
The solution is innovative advertising. @5 you're right that the market won't just "provide" out of thin air.
It used to, when newspapers had a complete publishing monopoly. But the monopoly is gone. Now, they have to WORK for their dough. So they should get working.
Period.
You are a clueless stupid piece of work.
Why? Corporate web filters that's why. No one's gonna snag you for checking out star babes on the Seattle PI.
Hey, I was reading the stock quotes...and stuff.
And it took you how long to figure this out?
Umm, Erica has a long and proud history of posting strident, self righteous, sex-negative, male bashing articles that you obviously haven't read. Much of her writing is lifted straight from Women's Studies circa 1993, which in my experience was completely and uncritically under Dworkin's spell. I encourage you to read Erica's musings on sexy Halloween costumes or the falsely accused "rapists" from the Duke Lacrosse team.
P.S. The idea that Erica is just like most educated women is an insult to both women and our educational system.
Can we stay on point with Erica's posts instead of engaging in an ad hominem pile-on? For once? It is so, so tiresome and transparent.