Murdoch to media: You dug yourself a huge hole

With newspapers cutting back, and predictions of even worse times ahead, Rupert Murdoch said the profession may still have a bright future, if it can shake free of reporters and editors who he said have forfeited the trust and loyalty of their readers.

"My summary of the way some of the established media has responded to the Internet is this: It's not newspapers that might become obsolete. It's some of the editors, reporters, and proprietors who are forgetting a newspaper's most precious asset: the bond with its readers," said Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of News Corp. He made his remarks as part of a lecture series sponsored by the Australian Broadcast Corporation.

Murdoch to journalists: Shape up or risk extinction

(Credit: Dan Farber/CNET Networks)

Murdoch, whose company's holdings also include MySpace and The Wall Street Journal, criticized what he described as a culture of "complacency and condescension" in some newsrooms.

"The complacency stems from having enjoyed a monopoly--and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted. The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception."

The 77-year-old Murdoch, recalling a long career in newspapers that began when his father's death forced him to take over the Adelaide News in 1952, said the profession has failed to creatively respond to changes wrought by technology.

"It used to be that a handful of editors could decide what was news--and what was not. They acted as sort of demigods. If they ran a story, it became news. If they ignored an event, it never happened," Murdoch said. "Today, editors are losing this power. The Internet, for example, provides access to thousands of new sources that cover things an editor might ignore. And if you aren't satisfied with that, you can start up your own blog, and cover and comment on the news yourself. Journalists like to think of themselves as watchdogs, but they haven't always responded well when the public calls them to account."

To make his point, Murdoch criticized the media reaction after bloggers debunked a 60 Minutes report by former CBS anchor Dan Rather that President Bush had evaded service during his days in the National Guard.

"Far from celebrating this citizen journalism, the establishment media reacted defensively," Murdoch said. "During an appearance on Fox News, a CBS executive attacked the bloggers in a statement that will go down in the annals of arrogance. 60 Minutes, he said, was a professional organization with 'multiple layers of checks and balances.' By contrast, he dismissed the blogger as 'a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.' Eventually, it was the guys sitting in their pajamas who forced Rather and his producer to resign."

Murdoch continued: "Mr. Rather and his defenders are not alone. A recent American study reported that many editors and reporters simply do not trust their readers to make good decisions. Let's be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves."

Murdoch's comments come at a time when the media landscape looks increasingly bleak both for print-based and online news organizations. A recent report by Goldman Sachs predicted that advertising pressure will continue because of the declines in the auto and financial industries. Online outlets are also feeling the impact. On Friday, TheStreet.com shut its San Francisco office.

Despite the blemishes, however, Murdoch said newspapers can still count on circulation gains "if papers provide readers with news they can trust." He added that they will also need to embrace technology advances like RSS feeds and targeted e-mails. The challenge, according to Murdoch, will be to "use a newspaper's brand while allowing readers to personalize the news for themselves-and then deliver it in the ways that they want."

Murdoch concludes that "the newspaper, or a very close electronic cousin, will always be around. It may not be thrown on your front doorstep the way it is today. But the thud it makes as it lands will continue to echo around society and the world."

[cnetbioch]

It's obvious that big media was totally in the tank for Democrats this election cycle. In fact, they've been like this ever since I can remember.

This year, bloggers and others on the internet exposed the media as propagandise, corrupt, arrogant and elitist. Journalism is dead.

This is why I never watch network news, cable news nor read any major city newspapers.

I get my news from the internet and mainly from the foreign press. Yes, the foreign press do know something about journalism.

[toomath]

Uh, the media has always been harder on dems than republicans - they bend over backwards to let republicans get away with bloody murder, while going after trivialities like haircuts. They tarred and feathered clinton for a personal affair and allowed Bush to invade a country based on lies that were easily discernable at the time. If you think the major media has a leftward bias you must be some sort of far right extremist. As we like to say, reality has a liberal bias. Conservatives claim bias whenever the news channels occasionally forget to cover for them. The liberal media never existed - it was imagined by Newt Gingrich and his ilk as a way to pressure the media to give them a pass. Sadly, it worked.

Harvard did a study last year showing that the vast majority of opinion sources on television news were right-leaning. The few liberals - Olbermann and Maddow are really it - are outnumbered massively by the right-wing herd. This is in part why Fox and other channels are losing audience share while Olbermann and Maddow's numbers are climbing - people are tired of the right-wing bent of the news channels. Murdoch is full of crap - the Dan Rather story was actually an example of right wing bloggers distorting the truth and bullying the media into capitulating to false charges. Bush never disputed that the documents were not materially true - just that they were not "original copies". The fact that bush was a deserter is not in dispute. He went AWOl, and got away with it because the media gave him a pass. And Murdoch uses that as an example? That's the media he wants - a media cowed by his darling right.

[sharonj430]

Uh, toomath, the media did not go after Clinton ... Republicans went after Clinton for lying under oath about his affair with a 19-year-old intern and so it became news. BTW, it was Clinton who shook his finger in the face of a nation and denied an affair, which was then proven. Clinton was a complete scumbag, so Puh-LEEZE! Don't ask me to cry for him. As for Rather -- give me a break! CBS did not oust a longtime reporter and the face of its evening news show just to pacify some rabid rightwingers. Rather rushed out his Bush-hating storing, but he screwed up, didn't do his job, and got caught using falsified documents. If "everyone knows" Bush went AWOL from the military, where were all the leftwing bloggers making THEIR case? They were nowhere, because there was no case to make. If you reduce the liberal media to be non-existent, outside of two MSNBC reporters, you are smoking dope and definitely a member of a shrinking minority in the country. Murdoch is right -- most of us have the ability to think for ourselves and, unlike you, have not permanently parked our minds in liberal fantasy land, nor do we spend our days looking under every rock for this "vast rightwing conspirary" that Madam Clinton uses to explain the resistence to -- and failure of -- every Democratic whim and desire.

[b_baggins]

toomath,

what universe are you living in? The press sent 30 investigative journalists to Alaska to dig dirt on Palin. NONE were sent to look into Obama's past.

A GOP senator sends a saucy email to a male page and it's front page news for weeks until he resigns. His replacement spends hundreds of thousands of dollars in hush money to his mistresses and it gets one day of reporting.

Senator Stevens is hounded out of office with front page stories about corruption because he has donated exercise equipment from a lobbyist in his home. Jefferson has $100,000 in unmarked bills from bribes in his refrigerator and it's in the press for about three days; he's still serving.

You are so out of touch with reality it's not even funny.

[bigmoney101]

"...the media has always been harder on dems than republicans - they bend over backwards to let republicans get away with bloody murder..."

toomath...you are cordially invited to remove your head from your arse.

[bdaughtry]

toomath, dude, you seriously need to get off those drugs!

[notashamed]

toomath, your joking right? I simply refer you to todays Washington Post piece by Howard Kurtz ; "A Giddy Since of Boosterism" Note all the links. Nuf said!

[psycho165]

Toomath,

Could you provide a link to the Harvard research you had referred to? I am in the academic world, and cannot find the specific research you cited. I have found a number of sources that state the media has a bias, but your reference does not seem to be among them.

Thank you.

[Endbringer]

@toomath:

Oh please, the media is much harder on Republicans than the Democrats. It's been proven by many independent groups that the majority of journalists are liberal leaning. That doesn't mean the media is completely bias, but it is much more left leaning than right leaning.

And your citing of the Harvard study shows your ignorance of what constitutes actual news compared to opinion. News anchors are supposed to be neutral in their reporting. Opinion anchors, like O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmes, are not reporting news.

Dan Rather used forged documents from a Democrat operative. It's a fact. Get over it. If there wasn't any truth to it then why did CBS fire him and his producer?

[paul descartes]

toomath,

The media OVERWHELMINGLY votes Democratic in elections (~90%). The media leans left (.) Not only in the news they choose to cover, but also in how they present the news.

[JayTee46]

@ toomath:

dude, try reality someday. The media is harder on Dems??

We were talking about THIS planet, not yours.

-JT

[DatabaseDoctor]

Valid points, but one item was left out; the newspapers tendency to abuse the customers financially. Newspaper subscriptions are all at or moving to a phase where they "bully" the customer. Case in point:

You have a subscription to paper for ten weeks. The last day of your subscription passes and amazingly, you still get a newspaper the next day... you've been sent reminders but you haven't acted upon them or you simply want the subscription to run out. You continue to get home delivery for a few weeks after the subscription runs out and they start calling your home. You tell them that you didn't want the paper continued.. they tell you that you have to pay for what was delivered. Why should you? You didn't subscribe for it or request it?

Well you better pay for it because the big conglomerates that own the papers immediately send you to a collection agency for the ~$21 they say you owe. You don't have time to fight it so you pay the money rather than lose your good credit rating. Sure you should have called them and cancelled prior to the end of the subscription, but since when do you have to pay for something you didn't ask for / subscribe to?

Welcome to big business newspapers. If you subscribe, we'll try to keep you forever and make you pay extra if you leave. Sad days for newspapers. I disagree with Murdoch's prediction for the future. Print news will die and Internet/tv/radio will live on. They're just too stupid and greedy to continue.

[scottlps]

I recently had this happen with the Houston Chronicle, I was nearing the end of my subscription and when they cold called me to continue I declined. I received a collections call three months later. I had a nice chat with the fellow on the phone, I pointed out that the call log on my account had a note of my intent to not continue my subscription. He admitted that it did, and then canceled the collection attempt. Two months later they tried again and I had to be a little firm to get the lady to drop her collection attempt.
Good way to win over customers...

[MDMlaw]

If this is true, there may be a consumer fraud and/or class action lawsuit coming. Some state attorney general might be interested. Or, more to the point, some advertisers might be the class action plaintiffs. The reason for newspapers to abuse their (non)subscribers in this manner surely isn't to collect a few bucks apiece from iindividuals through collection agencies; it's to mislead advertisers about their circulation numbers.

[HlLLARY CLITON]

I hope rags like the New York Times go out of business, I have no sympathy for them. They did it to themselves

[welrdelr]

CNN and the other Obama cheer leaders did theirselves no favors ... Obama might be the best man for the job but the public deserves not to have biased reporting .... I can not believe CNN's Blitzer or Roland call themselves unbiased

[lanka123]

I sure do, too. Whenever they call me offering subscription, I say with glee in my voice =- ' Sorry, guys, you are too liberal for me'.
Case in poiint, the other day I was trying to post a comment to an article by Maureen Dowd - they did not post it , I guess, because I did not agree with what she wrote. The only comments that ger published are those that agree with her point of view - you should see the littany of bile and poisonous speech. So no, they are not getting my subscription... And if laws of economy are true, there won;t be enough supscribers to sustain them. I'll miss theart section, though...

[bsharkey]

I'm sure they'll be pleading Congress for "THEIR" bailout any day now!!

[no-mas]

The major media outlets have wagered most of their credibility supporting the candidacy of Obama. Acting as his unofficial PR agency, they were willing to alienate and sacrifice almost half of their customers.
Should buyers remorse set in with some segment of those whom they helped to convince, more devastating circulation declines are inevitable. People won't forget who the salesmen were.

[psmithez]

The biggest loser in this last election was the american public. We finally realized that the news
sources we used to trust are unreliable and either skip over news they don't want revealed or
put the emphasis on things they want to promote or criticize. We can no longer trust anything
they say or write and will need to search out other sources for information.

Many families are dealing with all the misinformation some members
get from these corrupt "journalists" and it has soured many family relationships.

I am boycotting all mainstream tv and written reporting and combing news sources from internaltional
sources to sift out the real facts for myself.

What I keep repeating is "Once you have caugth them doing it - why trust them ever again?".

[allston13]

The major media outlets have waged a seven and one half year campaign to denigrate our president, our country and our way of life. I do not like W but he has been unfairly dragged through the mud by an out-of-control liberal media. We have been painted with the broad brush of indifference towards our fellow man when we are first and fastest with an offer to aid and assist in times of trouble. We have been painted as wasteful and uncaring concerning the environment when the brown clouds over India, China and Russia prove us to be environmental heroes in comparison.

The press has lauded the looters for years. They want to destroy the rich...but only the rich who do not agree with their politics. Like most of society, the press are being brainwashed to "feel" rather than think.

[ewelch]

There are some valid criticisms in the article and by Murdoch, but the man is a hypocrite, because he's as guilt or more guilty than many in the business for such arrogance and condescension. Maybe he's waking up to the fact of the weakness of the press.

What professional journalists need to do is to go beyond the bloggers. Let the bloggers do the celebrity news, and cover the minor stuff that any person on the street could handle competently. Make sure the reports are accurate before printing them and then make sure to give a comprehensive balanced report of that general stuff.

But where newspapers and networks will fall down is in not seeing their role to play with the assets they have at hand with their professional journalists. Let them work hard and long on important stories that people on the street don't have the time, competence or access to cover. Take on the real evil in the world. Explain the complex economic processes at work in the world. In other words, do the investigative journalism that the average Joe can't. And pay those journalists about twice what you're paying them now (except for the already highly-paid talking heads on TV - take the money spent on them and let someone competent but less expensive read the news that the real journalists behind the scenes put together.

With the time and money commitment put into intelligent, hard-hitting investigative work, newspapers and TV stations can enjoy reader/viewership that the free press was supposed to serve. But business people are singularly incapable of doing that. Ever since Wall Street decided newspapers were profit centers to invest in - since the 80s, see Ban Bagdikian's book "Media Monopoly" from that era - newspapers have declined. Maybe once the dinosaurs die off there will be a resurgence of real journalism that will come from the bloggers and other who decide that telling a good story is more important having lots of money.

[Acornisascam]

William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Rev Wright and others are snapshots into Obama?s History. What kind of judgment and influences do these alliances have on his thinking? We don?t know who Obama is. What subjects did he major in while in college? What was his College thesis? How did the 60?s Socialist Radical, Saul Alinsky, the author of Rules for Radicals (1971) mold his thinking? what about his real birth certificate and not that phoney one he displayed on his web site.

Murdock was the only news organization that tried to give us answers to these question before the election. With the In the tank Media we may have elected a real problem. I hope not because of the damage it will do to our country and make fools out of us to the rest of the world.

[edit35]

ewelch --
Having worked at many large newspapers, I can attest to the fact that it is usually ONE reporter who gathers the facts.... just as ONE blogger gathers facts.
It always comes down to the honesty of that ONE writer and his or her attempt at fairness, NOT whether the writer works at a big newspaper or in his living room.
Yes, the newsroom editor or copy editor can double check for grammar and such, but if that editor and copy editor THINK the same as the writer, the so-called facts and context of the story will never be questioned.
Liberal newspapers (redundant I know) are mostly guilty of the sin of OMISSION in that they often choose not to publish a provable story about candidate D .... but jump at the chance to publish the exact same story about candidate R.
I've seen it so many times it's depressing. Tips to the paper about a favored candidate are not even followed up because "hey, that could never be true" but tips about the unfavored candidate are pounced on and played above the fold, over and over.
It's the old "seven degrees of separation" situation in which a dishonest reporter can link ANYBODY to ANYTHING with tissue-thin association and supposition.

[billhennigan]

Un- surprisingly Murdoch is correct. The scenario he discusses is similar to the american automotive manufacturers in the '70's. They who treated their customers with disdain, while managed by executives having brilliant careers as they marched their companies to the vanishing point all the way blaming outside factors. While the competitors that valued and respected their customers picked up the market share.
The post- Watergate journalism that is awash in unjustifiable righteous indignity stomps with an arrogant certitude through the swamp of ambiguity where they live knowing their "stupid" customer wants a "tabloid" view of the world and the destruction of past, present and future heros in pursuit of the journalists political and social goals masked as "truth".
This type of environment is ripe to create challenging successful competitors that will be sought out by the "stupid" customers of the established news world. The newspapers will survive, but maybe not these we have today.

[trd1282]

Murdoch seems to be describing some mythical series of recent events that have caused news to become dishonest. As an industry, it has always been a reality distortion filter, with a very narrow scope.

[ecotopian--2008]

Why would anyone care what Murdoch thinks? He is an ******* who got rich by turning the News into propaganda.

[tajna_rabota]

Didn't Ted Turner do that too?

[knucklehead90]

I think the same question could be asked about any owners of newspapers and news outlets.
Their propaganda in Obama's favor was overwhelming.

[Jack K1]

The media is neither left not right per se. The media is Populist. Take for example gas prices. When they went up, the media covered the impact on consumers. When they went down, the media covered the impact on the environment. People were excited about Obama, so the media covered Obama in an exciting manner. Whatever the people want, media bends over backwards to give them. Unfortunately, people want whatever is new and exciting, and that's what media needs to move beyond.

It won't happen, though. In a free society, people get what they want.

[johnericanderson]

Not true. This time, they covered what the people wanted, maybe.

I remember clearly in 2000 and 2004 they favored the Dems, even announcing Dem victory very early on election day. Victory was announced as a fact.

When Clinton was impeached on 4 counts, the CNN headline read "Clinton cleared of 2 counts."

They neglected to report that he was found guilty on 2 counts.

That was the day I understood the media.

[kg2v]

Reply actually to Johnericanderson below - RE the Call for Gore early in the night in 2000

I work for one of the networks, and actually work with the elections people. It's well documented what happened. Back in 2000, all the networks got their data from a company called VNS.

Now, there are certain polling places that are better "predictors" of what is going to happen - one of those places is (can't remember name) a county in Florida that had the earlier closing time. That county ALWAYS goes Republican - the question is "by how much", and it actually becomes a good predictor because they KNOW there is a trend there.

So, the polls close, and they get the results, and the results show the county going for Gore!! I know the people at the desk didn't believe the data, and actually got on the phone with the folks at VNS and said "Those numbers look backwards, like you've entered the Gore votes in Bush and the Bush in Gore - can you check?"

About 5 minutes later, VNS calls back and says "The numbers are right" - at which time they called it "Florida, Gore - President, Gore", and told the directors and reporters, and it went out over the air.

About another 5 minutes later, the phone rings again - it was VNS, and they asked for the head of our desk and they said "XXX, you were right, the numbers WERE reversed" - At that point XXX EXPLODED and used some VERY unprofessional language, and issued what we call an "uncall" for Florida, and hence the election

Now I'll tell you - the FIRST thing XXX used to say to the analysits during every practice, and particularly on election day (XXX no longer works for us) was "We want to be first, but it is MUCH more important to be RIGHT - I'd rather be LAST and RIGHT than make an uncall - even for a house race, never mind a Senate of God Forbid the President"

That night caused a HUGE shakeup within VNS (which was owned by the Networks, some radio stations, and newspapers plus AP), and VNS folded after 2002. Today, actual vote counts come from AP (and in fact are still coming in for this year), and exit polling from EMR. (Called NEP)

So, the main reason EVERYBODY got the early 2000 call wrong was drastically bad data from the same exact source VNS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_News_Service

BTW NEP has done some amazing work after 2004 to prevent leaks - the members used to get polling data around 2:00pm EST - today, each member sends a representitive to a room in Manhattan with NO outside contacts - and he/she gets the polling data and can work the numbers - they are allowed out of the room at 5:00pm-ish, and therefore there is a LOT less chance of a leak

[ausernamenoonehaschosen]

Some here may find it interesting what the late Michael Crichton had to say about the media:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-mediasaurus.html

[crispamom]

To ausernamenoonehaschosen:

Thank you for the Dr. Crichton link. I enjoyed reading the text of that speech. Dr. Crichton was an unusually intelligent man who apparently had the MSM's number 15 years ago, when civilians' use of the internet was in its infancy.

[pbg3445]

When I was a kid, New York City was awash with newspapers: The Times, the Daily News, the Post, the Herald Tribune, the Journal American, the World Telegram and Sun--not counting the Wall Street Journal, the ethnic papers and smaller ones like the Amsterdam News and the Village Voice.
It was in that fiercely competitive environment that newspapers' quality flourished. columnists, reporting, comics.
Then in the face of television, we entered into a period of major cities with maybe one morning paper and one evening paper--and sharing resources. It may have been economically inevitable, but of course they began to get hidebound and detached. More syndicated columnists, more press-release journalism, more pointless puff-pieces But people got used to this state of affairs.
Now we have competition again. It's great. We're back to the Journal-American days, thanks to the Net. We may get rid of paper, but we'll also get rid of the moribund non-competitive, elitist unconcerned media and forward to the Good Old Days.

[gsekse]

"A recent American study reported that many editors and reporters simply do not trust their readers to make good decisions. Let's be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves."

True, I use the 80/20 rule. 80% of Americans either don't care, or aren't willing to work for the information they need to make an informed decision on a topic. Also a good portion of them are basically uneducated idiots. This sounds harsh, but it is revealed when you see "man on the street" interviews. Most people can't balance their own check books. Let alone have a viable opinion on economic policy. Most use stereotypes to make their opinions of people. Many people actually believe that the republican party missed the "obvious" and accuse Obama of not being a citizen of the US. I mean really, the republicans would have produced this evidence as soon as they found it. (and I'm sure they checked it twice) Yet many people continued to believe this item regardless of what basic logic would dictate. If you are offended by this statement, welcome to the 80%, if not, your part of the 20% who shake their heads every election in disbelief.

[david2464]

Wow, you just did a great job of illustrating the condescension much of the press shows it's customers. You were also good at tying that condescension in with your political beliefs. Democrats in general and Liberals in particular already think their smarter than everyone else but ad to that the title of " journalist " and you have a self righteous narcissistic pig. If you're offended by this, you must be a journalist

[tundraboy]

As expected, the repiglicans will again trot out the 'elitist' tag whenever someone points out the plain fact that conservatives in this country are on average less intelligent then liberals. Repiglicans have turned the US into the only country where being intelligent, well-informed, and articulate is considered a political liability. They got what they wanted in 2000 --someone just like them-- and look what that stupid, uninformed and inarticulate boob did to the country. All those people who voted for The Moron really should lose their voting privileges because they are complicit in nearly flushing this country down the toilet. The repiglicans are so stupid they don't even realize the moral, economic, and political damage they have done to the country.

The only good coming from The Moron's two terms is that it will be at least two generations before a majority of the country starts thinking again that it's actually good to have a president who is a blithering idiot. The stupidocracy ended in 2008. Stop trying to defend yourselves anymore. Go away! We're busy fixing the country.

[bry_nrv]

You sound like a "journalist" in the fact that this sounds like an opinion piece and one that is not well researched or could be backed up with facts...but that's just my opinion.

OPINION: "True, I use the 80/20 rule. 80% of Americans either don't care, or aren't willing to work for the information they need to make an informed decision on a topic."

OPINION: "Also a good portion of them are basically uneducated idiots."

OPINION: "Most use stereotypes to make their opinions of people."

OPINION: "Many people actually believe that the republican party missed the "obvious" and accuse Obama of not
being a US citizen."

OPINION: "(and I'm sure they checked it twice)"

When newspapers start reporting reporting the news again and stop with the opinions, subscriptions will start to head back to the year 2000 levels.

[Iusemybrain]

Fact: 50% of the country is of "below average intelligence"

People who use words like "repiglican" clearly state which group they are in.

I don't know many people that were either pro Bush or McCain even if the voted that way. When the two choices are crap, you have to go for the least of the crap.

Big media is an elite institution, and there is nothing wrong with that, most attend Ivy league schools and live in DC or NY. Again, nothing wrong with it, but they are only in tune with those two places. The have no touch with suburban or rural Americans...they need to branch out a little and get re-interested in facts, not opinions. I love to read a local paper but I cannot find one in my area that has any interest in the facts that would concern me or anyone that lives around me, they spout liberal and right wing talking points and spend time on what type of dog the Obama's are going to buy. Its a shame, I would buy a local paper if one was worthy, I refuse to support hacks that "write" for the local rags of this country.

[ps_martin]

"The stupidocracy ended in 2008."

tundraboy, I'm going to have to say, based solely on the content of your post, the "stupidocracy" is just getting started.

[Yxzr]

Your 80/20 rule is utter elitist nonsense. Your assessment of the general public is based on your ignorance of people, not your knowledge of them. Your "man on the street" analogy proves your ignorance. There are 300 million Americans. There are 299,999,999 smarter than you.

[Kesteral]

Who's fault is that? Is it that the average person is too lazy to find out the facts, or the the media has dumbed-down, over-simplified, and polarized the issues? If most of the information being reported on an issue is trivial garbage, then the average man on the street will reflect that garbage.

[jttrgv]

"Most use stereotypes to make their opinions of people."

This is jaw-droppingly hypocritical. LOL!

[bkosick]

I don't agree with you, I prefer to think it this way. We're ALL idiots. The only difference between us idiots is some of us are aware that we're idiots.

I'm somewhere in the middle and like some of what the democrats have to say and some of what the republicans have to say. I feel very under-represented by both parties and that politics in this country is becoming increasingly polarized by both parties.

[JCIll]

tundraboy, the mistaken notion that liberals are more intelligent comes from the fact that many of them are professors and students, who have never lived a day in real life. I suspect you fit into this category. You may call them intelligent, but most college professors can't even tie their own shoes!

[gopnick]

Newspapers are dinosaurs. They're all doomed, end of story.

[klflippin]

The recent Los Angeles Times arrogance I'm sure was the last straw for many. They have a video of an event Obama attended with Ayers and a PLO operative. They refused to release it. We don't trust the "news" anymore. I don't want to read "news" filtered through their eyes. Just give me the news please. The internet allows me to read news un filtered and fresh.
The old media is dead. They committed suicide.

[bsharkey]

exactly...

[PlayerOne]

"If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read "President Can't Swim." -- Lyndon Johnson

[allred55]

Jack K1 is obviously a cover name trying to trick us with a gender switch. I recognize the poster as a more well known female named Pollyanna.

[jackolantyrn356]

I think Mr. Murdoc has it straight up and is most unarguably correct. on this one ... The media has used the bathroom in its own nest once too often and no one was there to clean it up this time. They are unrepentant socialists out to remake the world. Well..it's time for them to be turned out into the world and force them and their 6 figure salaries adjust to reality. Remember little children if you help pull down the World as you knew it; your wallet is affected. It gets thinner. Personally, I jhave always liked News Papers. I'm a devoted reader, but I gave all major papers up about 7 or so years ago becaiuse I got tired of the constant never ending drubbing of Mr. "W". From day one he was daily beat by the media. I got tired of it. He never had a chance. It'll take years for me to pick up another news paper. and pay for it

[steelh]

Murdoch is correct. What he didn't mention is the final collapse of credibility most of the media brought on themselves by their sycohantic reporting on the Obama candidacy. Never have we known less about a presidential candicate, now the presidenct elect. And I don't blame Obama in any way...he simply took what the media gave him...a free ride.

[DaleCA]

tooMath, where is a link to that study? It runs contrary to every other study I have seen. And as Wm F Buckley so smartly said `I would rather be governed by the first thousand names in the NYC phone book than the faculty of Harvard'.

[tundraboy]

Really? Well then, you got what you wanted in George W. Bush. Happy with the results?

Wm F. Buckley, by the time he died, was totally disgusted with GWB and the repiglican party that has been taken over by the pro-stupidity wing. Do you share his sentiments as well?

[bry_nrv]

I really miss reading the morning paper with my coffee. I would stuff it in my book bag and take it to school or work but I stopped my subscription to the Roanoke Times because I just got so tired of the shoddy journalism and blatant left wing slant. I would fine myself jumping to the last three paragraphs of a story where the writer would add his or her own two cents worth in case the reader couldn't grasp the meaning of the story.

During my senior year in high school in 1987, I submitted an Op Ed about a protester, Brian Wilson (not the Beach Boy) who got his legs chopped off by lying in front of a naval munitions train. I was glad the train couldn't stop and thought it served him right. It was interesting to note that a response to my editorial was included right below mine. I guess the opinion desk had to show my piece to some lib co worker and that person responded immediately being very supportive of this protester who was listed as a domestic terrorist. My parents eventually stopped subscribing and later, I did as well. We received calls to become a subscriber again, me and my dad loved taking those calls! Newspapers unfortunately have become one big Op Ed and until they start reporting in an unbiased fashion, I will remain unsubscribed.

[inachu]

Not just left wing but right wing drivel that even would make any pastor turn over in their grave.
The worst of the right wing is fauxnews and the worst of the left wing is Franken.
At least I was entertained by the Colbert Report.

[K9s-4-k8]

Amen!! We have to add to that all those TV and cable outlets that cover only those stories that help their candidates and hurt their candidates' opponents. I do believe political shows that lean one way or another is fine, but it is when those same TV and cable outlets present news with a deliberate slant that I stop watching. CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and CNN are all guilty of this practice to differing degrees.

[bsharkey]

"Not just left wing but right wing drivel that even would make any pastor turn over in their grave.
The worst of the right wing is fauxnews and the worst of the left wing is Franken.
At least I was entertained by the Colbert Report. "


oh really... wow. well with bry_nrv's anecdotal tale above, you reply with this nonsensical non-sequitor like this.

which newspaper is that you receive, which is so RIGHT WING that you can't bother to read it anymore?? I'm curious to know.