2009.03.18
When newspapers die, so does democracy
Some people hate what they call the "mainstream media." Take that as a given. They especially hate newspapers. They cheer declining circulation figures and newspapers shutting down. Many of them figure new sources of local news online will pick up the slack and deliver the content they need.
According to economists at Princeton University, those people should be careful what they wish for. When newspapers close, Democracy takes a hit.
The duo studied the fallout from the closing of The Cincinnati Post on New Year's Eve 2007. They found that:
The closing of the Post reduced the number of people voting in elections and the number of candidates for city council, city commission and school board in the Kentucky suburbs, and raised incumbent council and commission members' chances of keeping their jobs.
In other words, without the newspaper acting as watchdog and providing information about local politics, citizens were less involved and those in power more easily held onto it.
For those who think blogs and television can replace newspapers, the report looked at that, too:
Although competing publications or other media such as TV, radio and blogs may take up some slack when a newspaper closes, none of these appears so far to have fully filled the Post's role in municipal politics in norther Kentucky.
Hat tip to Reflections of a Newsosaur blog for pointing out the report.
RSS feed 
When one newspaper dies, someone just starts another newspaper.
Comment by Henry — March 18, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
I think the issue is that other forms of media, such as radio or TV, are far more interested in getting ratings, which lead to advertising contracts and then income for the parent company, than reporting on the facts of events or investigating what's going on. Bloggers don't have the resources to do much in-depth research on an issue. But print media seems to be the one medium that balances the resource availability with a drive to research the facts of current events. I still prefer to get most of my news off print media, usually from 2 or 3 different papers. I don't watch TV news, and rarely catch radio news. I do read some blogs, but mostly for entertainment rather than substance. If print media, mostly newspapers, dies off, I do have some serious concerns for how well the issues will be covered, how much investigative reporting will be done, and the general level of information making its ways to the minds of the people. I don't think the biases of editorial boards is causing it either, though many on the right love to claim that. I think it's a change of the times as technology advances and people gather information from new sources, primarily internet sources. With a culture on the go and needing constant updates, having a one-daily newspaper delivery just doesn't seem like enough now when anyone has instant access to updated news on the web, and doesn’t have to wait until the following morning to find out what's happening around the world. Sadly, I think in much the same way that the horse & buggy and cabooses went by the wayside as technology advanced, traditional print newspapers will likely fade off to obsolescence, and only a few will survive in an online format with far less coverage of local events.
Comment by Other John — March 18, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Henry,
When was the last time anyone started a major metropolitan daily newspaper? Who, in this business climate, would?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — March 18, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
You are wasting your time, Dan. A lot of people on both sides do not want a watchdog. Unless someone can come up with a new source of revenue for print, we have a problem that will hurt for a long time in a lot of ways.
Comment by Allen Bunch — March 18, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
When newspapaers die it is because of the atitude towards to
people that feed the paper.
If there was more balance then I would purchase it.
This has been said for years, but people are just to stuborn and
the only way to turn the corner is to shut-em down.
Comment by HERB KREBS — March 18, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
I think the quality of reporting suffers from the competition between the many TV, radio, and blog outlets operating in the same area. A monopoly newspaper doesn't have to toady up to it's advertizers so much, since they have no other paper to go to.
Comment by Ed H — March 18, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
The internet and talk radio have helped to expose most of the print media, including the Roanoke Times, for what it is: unabashedly biased in favor of the left wing and Democrats. This is not just the editorial board, but the entire way the papers cover the news and which stories to cover. Southwest Virginia is still a fairly conservative, religious region, and people have alternative sources for news from a center-right perspective. In addition, young people just don't bother reading papers any more; they get their news from the internet or TV.
Comment by Roger — March 18, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
Fine, Roger. Then explain the demise of the Rocky Mountain News, a conservative newspaper. Or the demise of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a liberal paper in liberal Seattle. Or the struggles of the Washington Times and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, two arch-conservative newspapers that survive only because they are vanity projects for extremely wealthy men.
Explain all those, and I might agree you're onto something.
By the way, I've asked before for examples of liberal bias on the news side of The Roanoke Times. So far, no one's come up with anything specific.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — March 18, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
I consider myself to be fairly objective (I try, but doesn't always work), and I still haven't seen bias in the news coverage. Perhaps the only thing might be the relative importance placed on news items when comparing their locations within the paper, but that's entirely hypothetical because I don't really watch for things like that and it would be hard to prove anyway. For the folks on the RTEB, sure there's bias...but you all write editorials which present your views, so they're supposed to be biased, that's the whole point of why they're editorials or opinion pieces. I think the main cause is changing times, and not anything due to ideology of the folks working at the papers. The same thing that is causing the demise of print media is also causing CD and DVD sales to tank, TV ratings to drop, and theater attendance to stagnate...and it's because we can get all of that content essentially on demand over the internet, when we want it, on our schedules.
Comment by Other John — March 18, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
I want points for attempting to somewhat calmly rant about something that is a red hot, anger inducing, spitting mad, unseemly language in use, issue for me!
The scoundrels (and that is the kindest word I have for you) who come into 'this house' and show your true colors along with your disdain for our host is something that I find dishonest, un-American, unsportsmanlike, and dangerous. To gleefully wish for the demise of a medium that has faithfully and dutifully served, advanced and enhanced our community or to give your specious opinion that the supposed demise will be because the Roanoke Times (or any other newspaper) did not cater to your ideology (or even the majority ideology) on it's editorial pages is just disgusting! The lie that the "whole paper" 'leans Left' or 'is Left' is equally dishonest and not worthy of anyone who values what makes this country great. I have nothing but enmity and no patience for such crappy tactics.
If you are willfully ignorant of the important role of newspapers in the history of America, or their contribution (same as the good old days) to the wonderful historic aspects of the daily life, antics and happenings in our community, get yourself some information and repent the undeserved attacks. If you are among those people who dislike it whenever disinfecting sunshine is aimed at your pet program, politician, corporation, club or group, you have no credibility with which to make any attack. Newspapers are literally sometimes all that stands between us and the tanks we might not see coming.
If you think Fixed News or FlimFlambaugh will be around to investigate City Council, local politicians, powerful interests or the human interest and enriching information that we get daily from our local paper, you are delusional. If you think any other media will have the 'boots on the ground', 'nose to the pavement' 'ink in their veins' effort that a newspaper offers society to expose the next Watergate, WhiteWaterGate, cheating councilman, rigged contract, project losses or overruns, wasting of tax dollars, shady approvals, slumlords, 100 year flood, Centennial Celebrations, etc. you have a lot to learn and need to get out more.
The economy and competition for people's time as well as the lack of actual leisure time to sit and enjoy a local newspaper may well be the culprit that robs us of a treasure, but you had better know that even as you gleefully kick the ailing 'Grey Lady', you will rue the day she goes away, and I may well have that nervous breakdown that a steady diet of the hateful vitriol that cheers it on will have wrought.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — March 18, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
That anyone fails to see the liberal bias in the media including the RT's is laughable. That is not to say there are also not some papers that show a bias to the conservatives as well. More than the bias however, is the notion that they (all and any of them) have the wisdom and insight to know so many things so deeply that they can provide public guidance on what "we" should do or what "we" should think and how "we" should feel. This "news source" gives opinions on any and every subject near and far and on anything from simple local politics to complex issues of national defense, offshore drilling, or how to best solve the current economic mess. Where exactly do you people get all that wisdom? (BTW, all that is required for most articles is an awareness of how the D's roll out the party line on the subject.) At least when we watch the local news on TV we tend to see more pure reporting and rarely if ever a lecture on what is right, wrong, good or bad. Of course, what they (local TV) elect to report or fail to report can and often does put the bias in place just as effectively. Look at "journalism" from the historical point as you might in art history, for example. There is nothing "new" in spreading the news with a bias but in the evolution of journalism, the early Viet Nam era marked the point where the media crossed the line from a pure responsibility to "report" and began their assault on "shaping" public opinion. I'll form my own, thanks just the same.
Comment by Al — March 18, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
Please Dan. The haughty espousal of being the institutional voice of the paper out of one side of your mouth while feigning innocence and proclaiming the objectivity of the news division out the other side is getting old. News divisions have political agendas just like the editorial pages do. They just have to be more careful in how they express them. You are correct in that they don't openly express an opinion. Instead they act more like the Supreme Court. They show their bias in what they choose to report, how they choose to report it and perhaps most importantly, what not to report. The number of column inches, where it's located in the paper, the choice of one word or phrase over another, the decisions of who to interview and which interviews to report, the choice of which reporters to hire, all of these things set the tone for a story and help the "objective" news division shape their message. They may be careful to make sure that the facts they report are accurate, but you insult the intelligence of every reader when you try to tell us that the news division doesn't have political leanings similar to the editor in chief. The days of objectively reporting facts are gone. Now the media seeks not to report the cold hard facts no matter what they may be, but instead to shape a message to be delivered.
Like Sandi, I believe the media has played and continues to play a vital role in our democracy. But I also think that any objective analysis of the media as an entity reveals an overwhelming liberal bias in the profession. Sure there are pockets of conservatism, like talk radio and a select few newspapers, but overall, as an institution, the media has taken a hard left turn over the past three decades.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the issue is not the bias itself, but the fervor with which liberals, both within the media and within the population, deny this fact. If anyone dares raise the issue they are deemed "dishonest, un-American, unsportsmanlike, and dangerous." It reminds me of the Under Armour ads. The liberals are saying "We must protect this house." Why? Because the public will be more easily swayed to the preferred politics if they view the messenger as an objective authority rather than just another political lobbyist. That's what's truly un-American and dangerous.
I don't want to see the demise of the newspapers and the media. Instead, I would like to see the return of objective journalism and investigative reporting. God knows, in this era of corrupt public officials, pundits and bloggers presenting their opinion as fact, yellow journalism and demagoguery, we need real objective journalists more than ever.
Comment by C Ramsey — March 18, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
Some newspapers charge to access their online content like The High Point Enterprise where I worked many years ago: http://hpe.southernheadlines.com/subscribe/
Another newspaper (of my birthplace) The Reading Eagle has diversified offering web design and commercial printing services to subsidize the newspaper. Their website is awesome: http://www.readingeagle.com/
I've thought allot about this especially as it relates to journalistic ethics. Blogs are bias and often misleading - espousing rumor as fact. They are usually the view of only one person who sucks in people who are "just like them." So diversity of opinion is forsaken for a closed-minded audience. Same goes for TV (FOX vs MSNBC).
The Roanoke Times needs to reinvent itself.
Comment by Valerie — March 19, 2009 @ 12:31 am
I wish I could give specific examples of the Times being liberally biased, but frankly, there are too many and I wouldn't know where to begin. Then again, maybe publishing the list of concealed carry holders is a fitting example.
Could the Times have published a list of say, fishing license holders? Of course not, it wouldn't have met the agenda of liberals and their desire to abolish handguns. And despite how much the Times denies being biased, it never seems to stray far from the party line.
If the Times weren't biased, why does everyone seem to always be denying it?
BTW, Sandi, it only took reading the first two paragraphs of your letter to know who wrote it. The "hateful vitriol" you mention is dripping throughout your letter.
Comment by Patrick — March 19, 2009 @ 1:09 am
I know I stopped taking the RT print paper because its physical print quality just became so bad. Half the time the pictures weren't printed properly, and I'd often not be able to read articles I was interested in because the ink smudges running down one side or the other (and sometimes both) made the print unreadable. That was only made worse when the paper went to the smaller margins. I see the new version at my parents' house, and I haven't seen anything that makes me want to start getting it again. And this while the prices went up every billing cycle, it seemed.
I'm not saying that's the reason bigger papers are failing, but after a week or so of "withdrawal" from having the print media, I now don't even miss it. I buy a big book of crossword puzzles that I can't complete to replace the crosswords I couldn't complete in the RT (the daily ones were easy, but often unreadable for the same reason as above) and I can read all the comics, opinions, and local news from various on-line sources. Not as easy to take into the "reading room", but we adjust.
And adjustment is what it's all about. I'm sure the whip and buggy industry complained about people not buying their products after the automobile came on the scene, but that's economics. If the providers of print media can't adapt to the reduction in demand for print media, and provide people what they want the way they want it, they will die and something else will takes its place. You can complain about it all you want, Dan and Christian, but that's simply the way the world works.
Editorials about why people should buy newspapers or OH NO DEMOCRACY WILL FAIL!!! aren't going to change many minds, regardless of whether you're right or wrong. Times change, and if the Times doesn't change with them (see what I did there?) they will fail. Print media is going to become more and more a niche; that's the trend, and it's not going to stop. Other means of receiving news are becoming more popular, and people have so many choices that there's just no room for the traditional newspaper model that largely relied on people not having so many choices.
Comment by Rob Miles — March 19, 2009 @ 5:49 am
Patrick,
Publishing the list of concealed carry holders was an action taken by the editorial department, not news.
Care to try again?
C: Would a liberally biased newspaper have endorsed George W. Bush in 2000? How many newspapers did just that? Again, if bias is so pervasive in the news section, a few examples should not be that hard to come up with. How about giving us some "cold, hard facts," C.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — March 19, 2009 @ 6:09 am
You're right, Dan, it was an action taken by the editorial department... the same editorial department that is continually blasted for being biased.
How many editorials have been run defending yourselves? You know, the "we're not biased, we just get more mail...blah, blah, blah" editorials. At least two, I think.
Ya know, I watched a guy at Krogers trying to give out copies of the Times the other day and most of the people who walked by refused, several saying, "Absolutely not."
Comment by Patrick — March 19, 2009 @ 8:23 am
Patrick,
We've never, ever run an editorial claiming we're not biased. Editorials are supposed to be biased. We are paid to express our opinions, and to provide a forum for others to express theirs.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — March 19, 2009 @ 8:27 am
I think the problem here is that people are too uninformed to know what they are reading. This has been said way too many times on this blog...editorials are supposed to be biased...they are opinion pieces NOT news articles. This blog is a blog for the editorial dept. of TRT. If you don't understand the differnce between editorial and news article then you have no business telling any employee of a newspaper that their product is biased. If you do understand the difference and find bias in the NEWS articles then ok then but as Dan has said, no one has shown anything.
Now, as far as the demise of newspapers goes. It is not due to any political bias. It is due to the changing of the times. electronic media is the way people get their information now. It fits the majority's lifestyle. Actually, I think TRT has done an excellent job providing their online source but what is killing them is that it is free. But, so are a lot of news sources on the internet so until it become the standard for news sources to charge for their online content, I'm afraid it would be hard for TRT to actually have readers pay a fee.
I truly do not want to see the day that the newspaper industry no longer exists. They have the time/space to go into more details than TV news. I watch TV news because it's quick and not too time consuming if they mention something that I'm interested in, it is the newspaper I head to for the details.
Comment by HCS — March 19, 2009 @ 9:01 am
Dan: Good point. "You are paid to express your opinion". Follow that thought with the decline in readership and revenue and it should tell you something...but editors and owners have yet to figure it out, so here's a hint. Not enough readers want your opinion. Not enough readers value your views. Not enough readers are willing to pay for a product that does not fill a need for them. Not enough readers see you (the paper) as qualified to have the absolute truth on such a wide aray of subjects. You can print what you wish. You can be as biased as you like to either side of an issue. That is your right. But my bet is that many in the newspaper industry are coming to grip with market realities of not being able to pay the bills, support the staff and keep the presses running. I know there are a lot of other things involved but why shoot yourself in the foot among all those other problems. My bet is that your industry will continue to fall off the cliff and that there is not likely to be a revival of the "old time" news paper....but if any survive those that will are going to have to discover a way to return to reporting and away from edetorializing and that might deliver enough appeal for enough people to want to keep the presses running. It is noble to seek the truth on any issue, simple or complex. The problem is that newspapers pretend they have found the answers and now engage in trying to convert the public and charge them for the conversion. And just a note on "editorializing". It is not just the "editorial" page but the totality of what you elect to report or not report that shows where you stand. Can you follow the middle ground? It will appeal to a lot more than it does on either end of the spectrum, but my bet is you will not.
Comment by Al — March 19, 2009 @ 9:16 am
Yes, I fight hate filled vitriol with more of the same. a pacifist or an apologist I am not. Would someone please find me a newspaper, magazine, talk show, network, radio station, or for that matter a person who has no bias? There is bias in every thought we have, every word we utter, every sentence we type. Bias is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.
The purpose of the editorial pages is to make us think and in our case, we are lucky enough to even be allowed to interact with those with whom we might vociferously disagree. All healthy and productive uses of our time and energy. If you detest or despise the Roanoke Times because you perceive a bias that is too far to the dreaded 'left'. You are free to not subscribe, not participate and avoid it all costs, like Patrick's: "Ya know, I watched a guy at Krogers trying to give out copies of the Times the other day and most of the people who walked by refused, several saying, "Absolutely not." All fine and acceptable behavior, get your news and info anywhere you want, this is America, land of the free, home of the brave...
It is when you come into this or other forums, paid for and opened up to the public by the Roanoke Times and say: "When one newspaper dies, someone just starts another newspaper", "When newspapaers die it is because of the atitude towards to people that feed the paper", "the only way to turn the corner is to shut-em down", "expose most of the print media, including the Roanoke Times, for what it is: unabashedly biased in favor of the left wing and Democrats", "all that is required for most articles is an awareness of how the D's roll out the party line", "haughty espousal of being the institutional voice of the paper out of one side of your mouth while feigning innocence and proclaiming the objectivity of the news division out the other side", that makes me say that in my opinion you have more gall than honor and I do offer you nothing but the same vitriol right back.
The Roanoke Times has changed, adapted and taken on bold new initiatives (like this blog) over the years, all in an effort to serve the community and be a good citizen and some of you have the idea that someone elected you sheriff to ride in and tell it like it is, when in reality you are telling us how you are, how you think and how awful the world would be for the vast majority of us if you ran it.
Does the Roanoke Times run into problems? Yes. Was the printing debacle hard to suffer through? Yes. Does the editorial board take a more Liberal point on many issues? Yes. Do they print (what I consider right wing rhetoric, dripping with hateful vitriol) commentary and columnists with a Conservative point? Yes. Does the news and reporting ever seem pointedly biased toward the Left? Well, if you are so far right that you see that dreaded bias everywhere, then you might well see it there too, but I do not agree and posit that your 'leftdar" is too finely tuned for reason and substance to penetrate.
Challenging the Roanoke Times, the RTEB and the thread bearers in this blog is good and healthy (as well as fun sometimes), but wishing failure on anyone who so graciously allows you to participate is just "dishonest, un-American, unsportsmanlike, and dangerous"!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — March 19, 2009 @ 9:24 am
Al,
Again, conservative papers are as likely to fold as liberal papers. Liberal papers in liberal cities are as likely to fold as liberal papers in conservative cities. The notion that the economic problems facing newspapers is a result of bias is unsupported by facts.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — March 19, 2009 @ 9:28 am
Al, are you suggesting that newspapers should do away with editorials all together? And you suggest there are items that have not been reported on that reflect a bias or the flip side..things were chosen to be reported on taht reflect bias. Care to elaborate? What exactly have you not seen reported that reflected a clear bias to you? What was reported that reflected a bias?
Comment by HCS — March 19, 2009 @ 9:31 am
Al writes: "It is not just the "editorial" page but the totality of what you elect to report or not report that shows where you stand. Can you follow the middle ground?"
Everyone believes that he or she is standing on the middle ground. Your middle ground is in a different place than Sandi's middle ground as is hers to Henry's and so on. Editors make judgments daily as to which are the most important stories to their readers and how best to present them in the limited space available in print.
Keep shooting the messenger until it's good and dead. Then ask yourself what other industry is going to give over valuable space each day for you to criticize it? I don't know what you do for a living, Al. But I'd guess that your company doesn't send a newsletter to its customers that is crammed full of complaints. Nor, I suspect, does it host a Web site for people to complain about its product and service.
Now, the original post asked you to consider whether the folding of newspapers will affect citizen participation in democracy.
Comment by Luanne T. — March 19, 2009 @ 9:31 am
Big difference. Sandi and I don't run a newspaper. You do. If you are liberal, you see liberal views as "mainstream". That's why liberal papers refer to people as "right-wing" or "conservative" politicans or pundits quite frequently and rarely make reference to "liberal" or "left-wing" politicians or pundits. That's fine when the country is run by Republicans. You are providing a counter-balance that people want to see.
Now the country is run by Democrats and you are reduced to cheerleading. You (the media) also "dial down" stories that make Democrats look bad. People just don't want to pay for that. They would rather see the counter argument. Your competition (the internet) is providing that hard-hitting sensational reading against the Democrats that you used to provide against the Republicans. In short, your desire to push your agenda is more important than your desire to make money. That's not a good business model. Eventually, readers get bored and just wander off.
What the Roanoke Times needs to survive is "Change".
Comment by Henry — March 19, 2009 @ 11:21 am
Dan: I agree that the extreme bias will have the same impact no matter which side it is upon and death will result. That it is "unsupported by facts" however is open to investigation. You people in the industry should be the ones looking for the answers however, not your readers. Failure to do so essentially supports one of my thoughts...that open minded investigation is not really what journalism is all about today. It's too much work and it is far easier to pick up a popular path and follow it. One of your departed co-workers indicated in and exchange we had that "investigative reporting" was not her "thing". The reason some things remain unsupported is that no one is looking in the right place for the answers. Combined with the notion that once found, the answers would be uncomfortable and rejected anyhow, so why bother.
LT: No I do not feel everyone believes they are on the middle of issues at all. People on the extreme ends probably do not even recognize that a middle exists...but rational logical people do. People on the extremes are not interested in finding a middle gound and just as you have done here, you have failed to characterize where I stand on a vast variety of views even though you think you know based on a few posted comments. I know what I do not know and always am open to other points of view. I also know that my position on a variety of things are more "gut reaction" than practical solutions and I also admit to prodding some posters for the predicted reaction it brings.
As far as the demise of the news paper...I do not see it as a good thing BUT given what news papers everywhere are delivering I hardly see it as bad. Just about every business around has an interest in "customer satisfaction" in some form or another. Giving a public display of "critical" comments hardly addresses what generated the "complaints" cause might be and if it is valid. If a business wants to simply smear mud onto its face and stand on the corner with a smile and say "look what a great business I run...because I'm showing all my weaknesses"...well, I don't think your getting the point.
Comment by Al — March 19, 2009 @ 11:25 am
Dan,
It may have been a column, not an editorial that was printed denying your bias. Regardless, opinions, like stereotypes, are often created for a reason, and people pointing out the bias of the Times was not simply pulled out of thin air.
Comment by Patrick — March 19, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Patrick,
I have never alleged in a column that I or this page have no bias, either. That would be a stupid thing to deny. My job is to express my opinion and provide a forum for others to express theirs.
Again, Patrick, if you can find evidence of bias on the news side, feel free to share it.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — March 19, 2009 @ 11:53 am
LOL Patrick...give it up. Obviously opinions are created for a reason. What kind of an argument is that? And no the bias of TRT is not pulled out of thin air...their EDITORIALS are filled with bias and opinions...that is what they are! what are you getting at?
Comment by HCS — March 19, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Patrick...
Anyone who writes, whether it be news reporting or editorializing has a natural bias built into their being. You have a natural bias, I have a natural bias and so does Dan.
What Dan has pointed out and I agree with him is that in the actual news section of the paper, I find little or no bias in the articles as they are presented. Perhaps you are confusing what your interpretation of important news is versus the paper's news department as being important news.
The Editorial Department has never attempted to hide their bias's (and I don't use that word derogatorially). They freely admit their leanings.
I suppose though, the real cure if you feel the need to get one is just to simply choose not to read the RT or the Editorial Pages and move to a paper that more closely matches what you perceive your news and editorials needs are.
The RT seems to do a pretty good job of encouraging intelligent and polite debate of ideas and ideologies. Henry, Herb, Marked Man, Sandi, HCS and many others have had spirited debates on ideas, issues and people. At the end of the day, however, I suspect we could all meet for a drink and laugh with each other.
Sad to say, that's the element that seems to be lacking in many of the extremes on both sides today.
Comment by Will — March 19, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
Will, you are right on, as usual. You are a remarkable young man and I would love to meet you, HCS, Other John, Ed H, Joe (ntp), Blue John and some of the other great debaters we have here. The thing I love most about the Voices of the Valleys forum is that they literally strain to keep the debate (and it is spirited and informative as well as delightful) respectful and productive. I suspect, and Al has admitted as much, that for some here, this is just a place to vent and bait responses. The extremes of either side are just not helpful. The needless insults and the in kind responses, might be entertaining (or sadly sustaining for a zealot) but it is also divisive and destructive instead of being enlightening and productive. We can do better and some of us even try. Thanks for being a good role model!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — March 19, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Will - it would truly be entertaining to have a drink with you all. I bet we would all be surprised at who each actually is in person.
Comment by HCS — March 19, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
Will, I couldn't agree more with your post #30. But that's the point; more and more people are showing their displeasure with newspapers, for whatever reason (bias they don't agree with, poor quality, higher costs). In the past, newspapers often had a built-in solution; there wasn't much in the way of competition. Nowadays, if I want more in-depth information than comes from television news (which I rarely watch anyway), I'm not restricted to just newspapers. There's lots of other sources these days, and that's not going to change.
Comment by Rob Miles — March 19, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
I'd be game for that, and I'm pretty sure there would be no shortage of interesting conversation given that we all seem to have quite a lot to say on a regular basis!
Comment by Other John — March 19, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
I am with you Will,
I could meet for 1.
Make mine a Ice tea.
What I think we are trying to say is that the RT needs to instill
some right minded thinking people on the board so it will
embrace all of Roanoke and surrounding areas.
People get tired of being hampered by a leift wing view every day.
yes there is right on talk radio. People can just turn it off.
We can do the same with the paper, then you will unemployement as
it seems the RT is heading if it does not have middle ground.
Debbie Meade needs to get her head out of the sand and meet in the middle
or this paper is doomed.
Comment by HERB KREBS — March 19, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
My apologies, Dan, for not being more clear...it often happens when I'm tryig to do several things at once.
I didn't specify that it was you who wrote the editorial or column denying the Times bias. Someone did, more than once.
And Sandi? As far as needless insults, take a look at your previous post (#10). Pot? Meet Mr. Kettle.
Y'all have a nice day.
Comment by Patrick — March 19, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
Patrick,
Let me be perfectly clear: I can state with absolute confidence that no one working for this newspaper has ever written a column or editorial denying bias on the part of the editorial staff in the presentation of its opinion.
Period.
If you wish to claim otherwise, I'd ask you to provide some evidence.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — March 19, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
Dan,
Has there never been a column or editorial (or whatever you wish to call it) addressing the concern from people about the apparent imbalance of letters to the editor, and that that imbalance presents the image of bias?
I have read at least once such piece in which the apparent bias was denied by the author, who claimed that the paper was simply printing a correlation of the letters it received.
Comment by Patrick — March 19, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
Patrick,
I have written a couple of columns addressing concern about an imbalance of letters to the editor.
In those columns, I did not deny any bias by the editorial staff as you have repeatedly claimed. I did explain, truthfully, that our editorial bias does not influence what letters are published - a statement that is completely backed up by facts and apparent to anyone who reads our letters and commentary pages on a regular basis.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — March 19, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
As long as the Roanoke Times publishes, Linda Whitlock, George Will, Cal Thomas and other Conservative-to-the-bone columnists, the calls for "middle of the road" are as bogus as the pot calling the kettle about heads in the sand.
Admit it, this is just exactly like the "War on Christmas", "you don't support our troops if you don't support our war", "femiNazi", "environmentaliswackos", "family values", and all of the other crappy charges used when someone does not play ball the way you want. If the RT, the RTEB, or the Roanoke Times gives in to these bullying tactics, I will cancel my subscription and my support (and I am willing to bet, the 'values' crowd will not step up and support you either, because to them you would always be suspect as opposed to 'real Americans' like them). I have struggled to read enough of Herb's posts to know beyond doubt that when he wins, I lose. I do not for one moment believe he or Patrick or Roger want a "middle of the road" editorial page. C. Ramsey, Al and Rob Miles may well want a greater effort at 'equal time' and since I do not survey or calculate such issues they may be right; but most of your readers know you offer both sides red meat and plenty of avenues for discussion.
Debbie Meade's head is in the right place and her hand is on the pulse in my opinion. Have you ever heard the expression, "throw the baby out with the bath water"?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — March 19, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
"That it is "unsupported by facts" however is open to investigation. You people in the industry should be the ones looking for the answers however, not your readers."
LOL!!!
Comment by Ed H — March 19, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
"I do not for one moment believe he or Patrick or Roger want a "middle of the road" editorial page."
Sandi, that's where you are wrong.
I'd love to see an editorial page that does NOT lean towards one side or the other. I'd love to see an editorial page that presents equal opinions of important subjects. I'd love to see an editorial page that asks pertinent questions, rather than one that looks the other way in order to achieve its objectives.
Sadly, those editorial pages do not exist.
Comment by Patrick — March 19, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
Sandi...
Re your Post#31...Thank you so much for the kind reference of being a "remarkable YOUNG man." Ah, to only wish that were true. Reality though speaks to the fact that there's more white on top of my head than Mt. Everest and more years behind me than perhaps are in front of me. The closer to 60 I get, the younger 80 is looking!
I go into a room with a black light (yes, I still frequent a night club from time to time) and my head glows like a neon light!
But thanks again for the kind words!
Comment by Will — March 19, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
So Patrick, you would like to see more editorials that admit, for example, that "2 + 2 may be five, but on the other hand it may be three"?
Comment by Ed H — March 19, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
Wow, Will, you are obviously young at heart then. It is a habit of mine to "mother" people and you can ask anyone who knows me. I turned 50 this year and yet I always act like I am the oldest person on the planet. I always assume people are younger than me, ergo 'young'. I'd still love to meet you! Thanks for all your great posts, you truly are a positive addition here.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — March 19, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Patrick, I most certainly have read letters from those who oppose Obama and his actions. The EB criticised Obama when his cabinet picks started to crumble. It's been right here on these pages...I know it because I have read it and entered into conversations on these topics. Here's something for you to chew on...perhaps you think it is all so biased because for the past 8 years it has been Bush and it has only been 2 months of Obama...did you expect the EB to cram 8yrs of stuff into 2months time? Give it some time...I'm sure the longer Obama is in office things will surface that the EB can be critical of...and there hopefully will also be things they can praise.
Comment by HCS — March 19, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
Sandi,
As far as your post #40, that you will lose if we win.
Looks like we all gone to lose we the paper is gone.
So it become far and balanced or we can all start reading other
struggling papers online.
All i want is fair opinion in the by the RT on both sides.
Subscription would go up.
Why doesnt the RTEB print in there column that all can participate in the
online opionion.
I bet that might make people feel better that they dont have to wait 30 days to vent or have thier opinion stamped out.
THERE IS NO FAIR BALANCE on the board.
That is what is killing this paper.
We are sick of it and the people will bury it.
Comment by HERB KREBS — March 19, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
Patrick, Post #42: In my opinion that is EXACTLY what the RTEB does and they do it well. I have crumpled my paper and thrown it down in frustration on a number of occasions. There are columnists I no longer read and others I read just to refute, so I know that they irritate both sides. Dan has had me spitting mad a time or two. (Lord knows he has had to call me down in this blog pretty regularly) My letters or commentaries get passed over or not picked too. I stand by my belief. If you feel you are middle of the road or that you are asking the RTEB to be, I simply fail to see it in your posts.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — March 19, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
Ed H,
Sorry, but your analogy in post 44 is nonsense.
What I would like to see is an editorial that presents BOTH sides of the story equally and lets readers think for themselves, not ones that lean toward a particular agenda and tells people what they should think and do.
Endorsements are a perfect example.
Comment by Patrick — March 19, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Patrick, what you want isn't an editorial.
Comment by Luanne T. — March 19, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
Patrick,
All due respect, what you're asking for isn't an editorial. Editorials express opinion, suggest action, take sides. That's their purpose. What you're asking for are news articles, not editorials. And you can find those in the news sections of The Roanoke Times.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — March 19, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
The RT has published stories about mathematicians disagreeing on 2 + 2 = 4?!
Patrick
"What I would like to see is an editorial that presents BOTH sides of the story equally and lets readers think for themselves, not ones that lean toward a particular agenda and tells people what they should think and do."
So how is my example of that kind of piece "nonsense"?
Comment by Ed H — March 19, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
Herb...
All things being equal, I think the RT's Letters to the Editor and the other Editorial writings of nationally syndicated columnists do give a pretty balanced range of opinions on both the left and the right. I don't think the RT Editorial Board has made any secret of the direction of it's leaning.
Perhaps, just for the sake of discussion and the fact that the RT is still around, it means that the readership in and around the western part of Virginia isn't quite as right leaning as one might believe it to be.
Newspapers in general are loosing ground to more electronic and instantaneous media sources. For old grey horses like me, we've had to adapt to new methods of finding our news sources. I've never typed so much in my life!
What this may be pushing us all to do is to read more subjectively or in some cases more objectively and come to clearer decisions on our own without the benefit of affirmation of our positions from third party sources.
Just a notion. Chew on it for what its worth.
Comment by Will — March 19, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Patrick, that sounds great and all but then the articles wouldnt be able to regularly reference such outstanding news outlets like DailyKos (whose editor posted that he felt nothing over the hanging of the headless bodies of Americans from the bridge and to 'screw them') or sites like TalkingPointsMemo (which posted Bristol Palin 'pregnant and drunk pics' except it turns out that it wasnt her after all).
Some people read the editorials to 'feed' off of hate-filled vitriol from sites like those and we are lucky that its only a very small portion of a very small newspaper in a very small city.
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — March 19, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
Mark,
When was the last time a member of this editorial board cited Daily Kos?
And I know you know that the TPM post you are referring to was by a reader, and it was corrected. I also know that knowledge won't stop you from attempting to smear a left-leaning but extremely reliable, well-respected and well-researched news/opinion blog.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — March 19, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
As much as I would love to spend all evening going through post after post from the EB... would you simply go on record as saying that nobody on the EB has ever quoted or referenced DailyKos?
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — March 19, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
Dan,
I know you just didnt call the daily Kos well respected and reliable.
They are the most vile, unamerican blog in the world.
They allow people to make up stories, post it and low and behold
it is picked up and ran with by the left wing media.
Tells me all the left wants is trash and not truth.
Time to call on Rod Serling and transport you guys to the
twilight zone.
Comment by HERB KREBS — March 19, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
Mark, are you talking about in an editorial or on this blog?
Comment by C. Trejbal — March 19, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
LOL posted by a reader huh, like they didnt have control over that? So if i want to post some pics of what i think is Obama's children doing drugs, you would post them?
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — March 19, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
Sorry to dispute a fine point but the Daily Kos, TPM, Huffpo, et al are no less "reliable" sources of information than Drudge, ACU, CC, Fox, Free Republic or other places cited by many posters on 'the right' side of the issue. All internets have good and bad info (caveat emptor) and the ones who value their reputations, like all other media, do the mea culpa when it is exposed as having followed a false story/lead. Arguing is fine, being unfair while arguing is not.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — March 19, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
ok, now you guys are just getting rediculous! I mean think about what you are saying you are practically blaming Dan for what was posted on the Daily Kos!! Talk about agendas...What is YOUR agenda Marked? Clearly it is to slam TRT no matter how low you need to go.
Comment by HCS — March 19, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
Herb,
No, I did not just call Daily Kos well respected and reliable. I called Talking Points Memo well respected and reliable, which it is. I rarely visit Daily Kos, so I can't speak to its qualities, or lack thereof.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — March 19, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
"ok, now you guys are just getting rediculous! [SIC] "
Um i never said Dan was responsible for what the DailyKos posts... where did you infer that from exactly?
Do they prescribe marijuana for memory loss?
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — March 19, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
I hear Daily Kos mentioned from time to time, on the scientific and "liberal" sites I frequent, but I've never gone there myself.
Maybe I should. Anything Herb calls "vile, unamerican" can't be all bad....
Comment by Ed H — March 19, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
"LOL posted by a reader huh, like they didnt have control over that? So if i want to post some pics of what i think is Obama's children doing drugs, you would post them?" - Marked Man
You tried to discredit TRT EB for something that happened on a different blog. I don't think they prescribe marijuana for memory loss but if they do then you might want to ask your dr. about it.
Comment by HCS — March 19, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Oops, I mentioned Daily Kos in post #61 but mean TPM...same point though.
Comment by HCS — March 19, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
MY apologies Dan,
I misunderstood the post.
Comment by Herb Krebs — March 19, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
No HCS, Im so sorry...
"I mean think about what you are saying you are practically blaming Dan for what was posted on the Daily Kos" - HCS
"You tried to discredit TRT EB for something that happened on a different blog." - HCS
HCS, if someone is looking to sources that admittedly show no regret for Americans being killed or that willingly allow untruths to be posted under their name, should you then credit them??
Comment by marked man (mark) — March 19, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
It's important to look for stable ground in times where misinformation flourishes. Looking at the March 16 entry in this blog
http://roanokeslant.blogspot.com/
reveals some true reasons on why print media is dying.
Comment by Jim — March 19, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
Mark,
I'm sorry, but did you ever point to an instance where anyone on the editorial board ever referenced DailyKos?
Guess I missed that.
Just like you missed where the reader post on TPM was corrected. Oh, and like you missed the fact that it was a reader post, posted under the reader's name, not the name of anyone working for TPM. And it was corrected. In case you missed that part. Again.
And, speaking of sources, that's a great one, Jim.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — March 19, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Dan
Aren't you a moderator on this board?
Comment by Henry — March 19, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
Dan Im so sorry, I just realized that TPM media (ran by Josh Marshall) does not publish 'scandalous' pictures of people without verifying if they were actually real or not. I also just realized that TPM media would neeeeever just allow some random person to post any pictures that they want without screening them or verifying their authenticity. I mean an award winning blog would never stoop that low of course?
Wowwwwwww, did you say this stuff was Labrador maaaaaaaaaaan??
Comment by marked man (mark) — March 19, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
Mark,
I have no idea what your last line is about. In any case, if all you - a determined critic if I've ever seen one - can find to attempt to discredit TPM is a single reader post from several months ago, then I believe my point is made.
Good night.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — March 19, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
Thanks Dan, nighty night to you too...
I was helping you make your point. Like I said, I understand a blog may 'accidentally' allow a reader to make an accusatory post without going to the trouble to verify the validity, but a well respected, award winning blog would never allow some random reader to post actual photographs of an underage youth drinking and make claims that its actually someone else.
I mean that would be akin to allowing a reader here to post pictures claiming to be of Obama's children engaged in some illegal activity. I dont think you would be inclined to let that happen but if you did, perhaps a 'left-leaning' newspaper editor somewhere would call you trustworthy and well-researched, maybe even give you an award?
Comment by marked man (mark) — March 19, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
I don't see it as a bad thing at all if fewer people vote. It just means the voters that are left are more engaged and discerning. I think we saw what happened last fall when a glut of uninformed voters hit the polls. We elected a president with absolutely no experience or expertise. We are paying dearly for that now.
Comment by Kevin — March 20, 2009 @ 7:47 am