So are you. Print newspapers are losing readers all across the
editorial/political spectrum. Any idea why?

Sure. its COSTLY! to print paper, and cheap to look on the net.

Subscription prices climb because of the cost of printing, and when you
do get the paper, you look at all the ads and little news.

Amazing, you get to pay for advertisments that somebody paid to put
them in there.

what a waste!

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:07:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:21:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

OK - you're an expert. Provide us with 3 "impartial" survey questions.

1 - What is your name?

2 - Where do you live?

3 - What is your age?

4 - Do you approve of Bush's current handling of the Iraq situation? Yes?
No?

Would that last question be biased?

No fair- you only asked for three.

Outside. We're throwin' down right now. But first, ice cream.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:46:33 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:07:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:21:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

OK - you're an expert. Provide us with 3 "impartial" survey questions.

1 - What is your name?

2 - Where do you live?

3 - What is your age?

4 - Do you approve of Bush's current handling of the Iraq situation?
Yes?
No?

Would that last question be biased?

No fair- you only asked for three.

Outside. We're throwin' down right now. But first, ice cream.

OH OH - Strawberry banana split please...

EAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Robbins wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan J.S. wrote:
NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I
wonder
why?
:)


Certain segments of the public have no respect for people with
differing views. It's never political, it's always personal. I wonder
if some of the people in that group are cancelling subscriptions to
"punish" the Times?

You can't hold your self up as providing an objective perspective on
the
happenings in the world when you stories take a biased view that is in
sync
with your editorial view.

People see through the thin viel of objectivity that the major
newspapers
present!


I don't disagree with your basic premise, but I have serious doubts
whether the majority of the public expects or even wants total
objectivity. News formats with an obvious and open bias seem to be
generally gaining in popularity; with Fox News a specific example. More
people are also gravitating to "opinion" formats, (such as talk radio)
where there is no specific claim to even be factually accurate, let
alone unbiased.


Which is better an open bias that is generally 80% accurate with the
whole story (Fox news) or a hidden agenda that is 80% biased (national
press).




Is this bias?

In the past, Bush has announced at least 3 times that the Iraqi military
and police were "now well prepared to handle more of the security
situation for their own country". Then, within a few days, someone parks a
car full of explosives right in front of a police station and turns it
into rubble.

Do you believe the "biased national press" should report Bush's
announcement, but suppress stories about things which contradict what he
said?
No, and Fox reported both. The difference is that Fox reports WHY we are
there and the national press keeps insisting that the only reason we are
there is WMD. They never report on the strategic value Iraq has. IF it has
no value then why is there such a massive terrorism campaign there and not
in Afghanistan. Everytime I hear of more terrorism in Iraq I KNOW we are in
the right place.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...
NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder
why? :)


Don't read much news, eh? Print newspapers everywhere are losing
readership for a number of reasons, none of which you're likely to be
aware of.

I use Mozilla Firefox and a plug-in called BugMeNot when "logging" into
any of the online newspapers that require free registration.

It won't work on pay sites like the Wall Street Journal. Yet,
surprisingly, the Journal isn't seeing the same large decrease in
readership.


I suspect it's because WSJ has something that's not so easy to find in a
print newspaper: More complete financial data. I don't mean articles -
I'm talking about the charts. Without that, it would be just another
newspaper.


Hardly anyone uses those charts - plus there are not that many charts.
You may be thinking USA TODAY :) . Anyone in the financial world will use
real time charting like Bloomberg terminals or Reuters Bridge systems.


On a subway? :-)


Doug

Seriously - the charts, etc are old news (last nights closing prices, etc).
Businessmen have blackberries that provide them with real time data too. WSJ
is really about the articles, insights, commentaries, reviews and trends.

Debate issue:
Resolved, that the people of the United States need a mechanism to remove
incompetent voters from the voter rolls
Issue: define incompetent

Felons
Anyone on public assistance
Illiterate

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:21:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper
40's...despite
record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a
major
hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all
levels.


Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ±
3.

.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling
his
job as president?"

.


Approve 40% Disapprove 53%


Rasmussen: 47%
Fox: 45%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45%

Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess
that's
what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth.

I assume you didn't like the way Newsweek phrased their survey
questions.
Do you know what they were, or do you disapprove without having that
information?

I disapprove of the constant negative barrage of misinformation that
continually comes out of Newsweek.

There are numerous ways that polling data can be manipulated or
"shaped"
to fit an agenda. When one poll differs substantially from three other
major polls, you have to begin to wonder why...particularly when you
add
it to the fact that they consistently put out negative info on the
President.

OK - you're an expert. Provide us with 3 "impartial" survey questions.

1 - What is your name?

2 - Where do you live?

3 - What is your age?

4 - Do you approve of Bush's current handling of the Iraq situation? Yes?
No?

Would that last question be biased?

It could be if they used the earlier questions to profile you...and then
hung up if you didn't fit their sample population.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

Debate issue:
Resolved, that the people of the United States need a mechanism to remove
incompetent voters from the voter rolls
Issue: define incompetent

Felons
Anyone on public assistance
Illiterate


Public assistance? You still hold the belief that everyone receiving it is a
bum who's not trying to pull themselves up by the bootstraps?

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

Is this bias?

In the past, Bush has announced at least 3 times that the Iraqi military
and police were "now well prepared to handle more of the security
situation for their own country". Then, within a few days, someone parks
a car full of explosives right in front of a police station and turns it
into rubble.

Do you believe the "biased national press" should report Bush's
announcement, but suppress stories about things which contradict what he
said?
No, and Fox reported both.

Good. But when other news organizations report the bit about the crumbling
police station, certain ditto-heads point to that and say "Ah ha! They only
report the bad news!" In fact, sources like PBS play the exact same clips of
Nookular Boy talking about how "ready" the Iraqis are to take care of
themselves, but the ditto-heads choose not to listen.

Do you believe the "biased national press" should report Bush's
announcement, but suppress stories about things which contradict what he
said?

Jeff Rigby wrote:
No, and Fox reported both. The difference is that Fox reports WHY we are
there

Uh huh. Why is that, exactly? Because Saddam was responsible for Sept 11th?

Face facts, Fox is nothing but a Bush-Cheney propaganda outlet. It's
amazing to me that with the millions they spend primping the Bush
Administration (thru Fox and other media), they're still in the mud.
Nixon did a better job... at least, up until he got caught.


... They never report on the strategic value Iraq has. IF it has
no value then why is there such a massive terrorism campaign there and not
in Afghanistan.

Excuse me, there *is* a massive terrorism campaign going on in
Afghanistan. The difference is that there are far fewer U.S. troops
there, they're better insulated, and the whole country has a far lower
population density.

... Everytime I hear of more terrorism in Iraq I KNOW we are in
the right place.


That figures.

No explain why we're doing sucha great job in Iraq if fewer people have
running water & electricity now than 2 years ago, and the Army can't
even keep the road to the airport safe.

DSK