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!

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.

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.

Nice spin Chuck!

People want to know the who, what, where, when and how. They don't want the
reporter to interject their biases regardless of whether that bias is left
or right. The press is failing to perform its duty which is to inform the
public rather than to sway public opinion in any direction.

"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.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
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.

Damn, NOYB, a realistic assessment. That doesn't sound like the Bush
cheerleader we all know. ;-)

There's hardly a similarity to Carter or Nixon, who finished 12 approval
points, and 22 approval points, respectively, behind where Bush is right
now.

The blood bleeds slowly, NOYB. Remember, Nixon actually did win
reelection by a landslide, over 60% of the vote and all but one state. I
doubt that Bush will reach Nixon's lows, without Bush himself being
indicted (I don't expect that he will be). His core support is larger
than that, but Carter? He could easily reach Carter's lows.


When you're fighting a war like we're fighting in Iraq, 2 1/2 years isn't
enough time to decide how things are going to turn out. Talk to me in 3
years if his numbers have dipped to below 40% by then. I'd bet not.


Let's see...
Almost 2 1/2 years after the US entered WWII, our forces got obliterated
by Rommel at Kasserine Pass. What do you suppose FDR's approval rating
would have been if CNN/Gallup was around back then taking weekly approval
ratings?

Probably quite high. The country was overwhelmingly in support of that
war.

The country overwhelmingly supported war with Japan because of Pearl Harbor.
But there were plenty of doves who opposed sending our guys to die in
Northern Africa and Europe to fight "Europe's war". After Kasserine Pass,
you can bet that there were a lot of American's questioning whether we
should be there at all.





Remember, there were very, very, few protesting our invasion of
Afghanistan. Our country was fully in support Bush going after bin Laden.
Iraq is Bush's downfall and the news from there, isn't looking like it
will improve.

Most Americans supported going into Iraq as well.
But Americans are fickle and impatient. A little bad news goes a long way
in shaking the resolve of a good portion of our country.



To me, it's looking like a Civil War is a very real
possibility.

The Sunnis have always been problematic, but now the Kurds are also
unhappy with the Shias. Jaafari in all probability is an Iranian agent.
Between Chalabi and Jaafari it's looking like the Iranians have played
Bush for a chump, and we are holding the dirty end of the stick. It's a
real mess.

A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American security.
Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to other nations.

"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.

"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.

You can find better charts on Yahoo.

Without that, it would be just another newspaper.

With a pretty damn good readership.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:07:43 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American security.
Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to other
nations.

I'm not sure they are a "threat" anymore civil war or not.

Although a perpetual civil war would keep the dumbasses busy.

If they're fighting each other, then we can sit back and watch who is arming
who. It will certainly make it easier to pick sides if you see Iran sending
arms, intel, and money to one of the sides.

"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? :-)

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

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

They are blind to its cause!


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