RIP: Over 100 newspapers dumped in year, ads down 50%, circulation hits bottom, washingtonexaminer.com‘s headline proclaims. In other words, print is dead. But that’s not all. What’s commonly called broadcast TV is losing audience share, as younger people turn to the Internet for their news and entertainment. The so-called mainstream media’s influence is fading, replaced by a multiplicity of independent voices. This website’s monthly readership, for example, is three times larger than the Washington Post’s print circulation. Yes, but – the mainstream media magnates are spreading their anti-gun agitprop through the intertubz. So who’s winning the war for gun rights? Those who tell the truth about guns or the same old cast of characters bent on selling the same old statism? Is time running out for the antis?
Print media is dead for a very simple reason: free beats paid, especially if the quality is the same or better. Newspapers are figuring this out way too late as successful ad based websites have been around for a decade. The other great thing about this market shift is that you no longer have to pander to the advertisers, since it is the end reader ultimately (albeit indirectly) generating the cash flow. We have seen what happens to modern web based companies who violate the hands off rule with their advertisers, and it appears that the system is working in our favor for the time being.
Another reason for the demise of the old guard media is the immediate access to real time events and information as it becomes available.
Even the mass media websites have a lag time while they fact check(we hope) what they post in an effort to cover a$$.
I’d suspect the convenience and lag are the most important features.
There are free newspapers around, supported entirely by ads, much like most websites, and those papers are dying just as quickly. And broadcast TV is ad supported as well.
What makes the internet a better news medium is that:
* We can get the news whenever, rather than waiting for Dan Rather and the evening news.
* We can access multiple sources with a single device, rather than buying six magazines and two newspapers at a news stand.
* We can access different sources from one day to the next, rather than being stuck with what we’ve subscribed to for a year at a time.
* And (most important) we get the news right after it happens, than a day or a week later.
Outside of the major news networks, there is a lot less anti-gun bias. So I would say the death of big news and newspapers is a good thing
To my jaw-dropping surprise I’ve seen at least one positive DGU story each month for the last three months on Good Morning America.
You can tell the anchors don’t like talking about it because they get really awkward either quiet and fast to move on or start laughing about something that isn’t remotely funny in the middle of the story but they’re at least talking about it.
As to the fate of media as a whole all static media is walking dead. Anything where somebody is assigned the task of telling you how something is is dead. Papers, television, feature length films, blogs, radio…. all dead.
Personally I can’t believe cable TV is still around. I thought it would have been buried and forgotten by now. I blame federal regs preventing true deregulation for keeping it alive. Sort of like how NJ mandates morons get jobs pumping gas.
Through the city lens it may seem like cable/satellite tv should be dead but in rural areas(like mine) it’s still difficult to get reliable internet. Satellite internet is HORRIBLE from one provider in my area and not even offered by the other, Wired cable doesn’t come anywhere near me and 4g wireless doesn’t cover the area either. The best option most of us have is a local wireless provider that has extremely slow service as well. A 2 minute Youtube video takes 15-20 minutes to buffer and Netflix isn’t really possible.
While cable TV and cable internet service providers are typically the same thing right now, it’s only because they share a physical network. I have several times used a cable ISP without buying cable TV service. I don’t buy TV channels because it’s a waste of money (in my opinion, of course — others obviously still disagree). There is a likely future where cable TV dies, but the cable network persists as a physical network layer.
where my father lives in rural KY cell phone service isn’t really an option either. For tv service cable is still viable there.
That might be the most disturbing thing I’ve read on TTAG.
Sounds like where I live….. I have to be happy with 8 gigs/mo, or be faced with gulag-like levels of dial-up.
I think these two old saying have a lot to do with it too: (1) “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”, and (2) “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me”. Most people hate being lied to, and the result is that the majority of the people in the US have stopped trusting the government and the mainstream news media.
You nailed it right there.
People definitely hate being lied to and when within seconds folks can (and do) check the veracity of MSM stories against multiple online sources it’s readily apparent the big news outlets have a rather insulting view of their viewers’ and readers’ intelligence.
The inter web is useful for checking the veracity of Fox News too. 🙂
You are correct. When I say MSM Fox is right in there with the others.
MSM is liberal state sponsored media. Fox at least is an alternative to MSM, even though they have their axe to grind.
After every major shooting, and school shooting in particular, there has been a public outcry of some degree. This is understandable, as much as possible should be done to prevent shootings on campuses and in other public places. However, on every occasion there has been discussion to ban the type of firearm that “was responsible” for the shooting.
After Sandy Hook, something happened that couldn’t happen before – people accessed data over the internet. Now, I don’t mean access to some pandering article or video about how a firearm is evil, I mean raw data. FBI UCR data. The *political* definition of an “assault weapon”. What kinds of firearms were actually available to the public. Exact legislation of what would be voted on. How background checks work. And then the *strangest* thing happened…public opinion shifted to a favorable view of gun rights (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/us/gun-control-gun-rights-pew-survey.html?_r=0).
The availability of this raw data was limited during the time of Columbine, but as the internet proliferated people began to do research for themselves instead of relying on the nonsense of some politician or biased publication. As this raw data generally shows that “assault weapons” rarely if ever contribute to crime, violence is falling no matter what prohibitive law is or isn’t in place, and how *confusing* many of the gun laws are in this country, I think people are beginning to understand and appreciate the Second Amendment, especially in the deep blue States and throughout the younger generations (those that use the internet).
And yet Connecticut enacted a severe weapons ban. Strange how that works.
Yes, Progressives have a strangle hold on Hawaii, California, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. The Almighty State is alive and well and does whatever it damn well pleases to serve the ruling class in those states. In the rest of the states of union, Progressives play an advisory role.
Please research the political platform of Progressives and compare it to the well-established tenants of communism. After your research, please tell me whether you still want the United States of America to be more like Russia, China, and North Korea and why those nations are such wonderful places.
“And yet Connecticut enacted a severe weapons ban. Strange how that works.”
Even more strange is that all you had to do, God, was to smite those evil guns from the face of the Earth.
And you didn’t.
Hm.
I’m not sure I’d be so quick to celebrate “the death of big media”. While newspapers and TV news have been going through an identity crisis since about the mid-90s, they are still the only ones bringing us news on various subjects from around the world. Were it solely up to blogs our news coverage would consist of little more than unsubstantiated rumors and opinions gleaned from twitter feeds. There is a need for large media outlets because small operations cannot provide anything resembling global context with real-live people on-site. That being said, they need to come up with a sustainable business model, something I don’t think many sources have managed.
With regards to their bias, human nature dictates that some bias will always exist. The only difference is whether you’re up front about it or try to cover it up. And with the financial squeeze on news organizations, the focus is not on quality journalism but on click-throughs, time-on-site, and other traffic metrics. Under the current business model, high-quality, well-considered news pieces are anathema.
“There is a need for large media outlets because small operations cannot provide anything resembling global context with real-live people on-site.”
There is another possible way to consider this…. Supply and demand when applied to crowd sourced data could easily replace the reach of “big media”. As more people search for unfiltered information from other areas of the world Those who are willing and able to provide that information stand to profit.
Is big media standing in the way of progress?
TheBlaze.com
Breitbart.com
HuffingtonPost.com (ugh)
AlJazeraAmerica.com (double ugh)
ALjazzera is several rungs up the ladder from huffington post.
Also the media has lost credibility. As the cutting edge has moved away from print and broadcast, only the older stale media personalities are left behind. They are increasingly narrow in their POV. Think about it, why would a big name who is right leaning stay to get kicked around at NBC when he could get twice as much money and 10 times the camera time working for Rupert Murdoch and they don’t trest him like a pedophile. Look at john stosel. He was prime time on a major network. But they always treated him bad, over looked him for advancement, cut shows or segments that pissed off the left. Now he’s on an hour a day on fox business. Is his show as good, no. He no longer does the really cool investigations. His budget likely will not allow for them in the nightly format. But he gets treated better.
Now look at the recent scandals. Dan Rather lying about bush etc. these things kill the last bit of prestige networks have. And guys like rush pointing out lies they tell every day Dont help either.
Interesting comment on Stossel. He is not on an hour a day in Austin, TX, watching FBN on Time Warner. How many different program lineups do you suppose one network has?
I believe the pro-liberty side is gaining steam for the simple reason that people can now easily research and verify information via the Internet. After all, research is an integral aspect of decision making. And now that we have access to information beyond the propaganda coming from the mainstream media, the tide is turning. The only question is “how far” will the tide turn.
Who’s winning? It doesn’t matter. What matters is who’s fighting, which will ultimately determine who wins this war many decades from now.
Well said, sir.
A larger segment of America doesn’t pay attention to any news. Print, internets, whatever, it simply doesn’t interest them in the slightest. The “low information” crowd. As long as the Kardashians, their Facebook or Dancing With The Stars is on, who cares?
The segment that “does” pay attention knows the MSM, and newspapers are no longer “news” org’s. it’s a propaganda wing for a Progressive Agenda. And they suck at it. Air America comes to mind. Conservative radio has beat the libs up for years, and they can’t compete. Same for the Internet. Breitbart, Drudge, TTAG, and others expose the folks to the truth, not some liberal talking point.
Breitbart is the truth? Not around border Mexico they sure are not. And one of their Arizona militia reporters was a leader of a skinhead group out of Atlanta.
But yeah … I guess to low information redneck conservatives that’s your idea of unbiased news.
Breitbart is enjoyable in that they piss off Marxist liberals like you.
They don’t piss us off. They keep the low information opposition stupid. But of course, people like you can identify with black hating, Jew hating, Latin hating skinheads no doubt.
Keep it classy! LOL!
That’s rich, and a completely laughable statement. All of the antisemitism and racism I’ve heard lately has come from the left & social-justice “warriors” online.
Well stated Tom W. You hit that one out of the park!
Pedophile porn pisses off us liberals. I guess that by your rather low standards you embrace such things?
I like it when online stories about guns get lambasted in their comments section, (when available).
Maybe they’re learning from that.
I think that with the phony TV talking heads, George Stephanopoulos and Brian Williams, were exposed, I think a lot of people are reevaluating who is trusted and who is not. Some are finally realizing that it has been going on for years with the Dan Rathers, Bryant Gumbels, and other phonies.
I believe there is another huge problem at play for old guard print and television. In the days of yesteryear, journalists were diverse — having different socioeconomic backgrounds, political leanings, and visions for our future. These days, it is common knowledge that something like 95% of journalists are hardcore Progressives whose sole objective is to institute the Progressive dream of government and country … and it is obvious in their content. Given that more than half of the nation opposes a hardcore Progressive future of government and country, the old guard print and television have managed to turn away more than half of the nation. And that shows in their revenue streams.
While the anti-gun mainstream media is declining, an incredibly wealthy Democrat party is alive and kicking. And they are looking to vote in an extremely anti-gun POTUS who may win the campaign with no conceivable qualifications other than being “female.”
Every time I consider this, I cannot help but vividly hear in my head, “Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!”
Unfortunately, Progressives have taken over the Democrat Party and all they have left to appeal to uncommitted voters at this point are novelties. Last election cycle it was a minority for President of the United States. Uncommitted voters said, “That is a novel idea. A minority has never been President. Sure, I want to participate in a historic event.” This election cycle it will be a woman. And uncommitted voters will once again say, “That is a novel idea. A woman has never been President. Sure, I want to participate in a historic event.”
If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, I don’t see any other way that the Libertarians or Republicans can win unless they find an excellent woman to run for President.
Fortunately for either party, the old guard media has already greased the skids in the electorate. Have you noticed all of the television shows, news, and movies in the past 8+ years that portray proficient “power” women and incompetent docile men?
Isn’t that the truth!
Today’s sitcoms and commercials routinely paint a portrait of the idiot buffoon husband whose wife is smarter and more capable than he. Nothing less than a progressive, feminist, politically correct wet dream.
Hillary possible but likely without a Democratic congress, without an equally aligned Supreme Court, and with many/most state governments Republican. She is not Obama and is much less appealing to Independents. Obama had no track record and at least said some “right” things, whether he believed them or not. Hillary has a long, negative track record and no-one except for her die hard supports believes any of what she says. Hopefully that means a repeat of Obama but without the 2008 situation of a Democratic sweep. As in — no power to do any real damage. Does that mean constant harassment by agency diktat? Absolutely. Does it mean another war fomented to distract the public or to provide her a power position? Sadly likely.
I think our gun rights would be safer with Hillary than Christie or Jeb. At least then they’d have to put up a pretense of trying to stop her agenda. “Give us the house and we’ll stop it. Give us the Senate and we’ll stop it. Give us the white house, then we’ll stop it.” The ones in charge of the GOP right now are not our friends.
I do not trust Jeb or Christie either. I can almost see Hillary getting dumped later by the Donkeycraps.
Wanted to leave my comment and wanted to provide a few thoughts of my own.
1. I didn’t cancel my newspaper subscription because of cost, it was the slant. Very obvious reporting for the left.
2. Are all media straight up reporting? I don’t bet on it. The reports in Drudge come from a source, are they edited to take out any slant? I’d much rather read a report that I agree with. So, I’m already biased to accept reports that reflect my views. Anybody else? (got a mirror handy.)
3. Statistics anyone? There’s the proof, at least to me. I recall the first time I saw a breakdown of gun death number. They took that big number and broke it down by groups and legitimacy. Although I didn’t remember the exact breakdown I was able to stop an anti gun screed by requesting the speaker break it down by age and legitimate shooting by law officers as well as gang bangers.
I find the admonishment “trust but verify” to very applicable. Even to the reports I like.
“Are all media straight up reporting? I don’t bet on it. The reports in Drudge come from a source, are they edited to take out any slant?”
Drudge isn’t a source. Drudge doesn’t edit (much of) anything.
Drudge is nothing more than an aggregator, linking to sources.
In my opinion, ‘Real Clear Politics’ (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=nwa) is one of the best of the news aggregators, linking both left and right sources.
Is this article satire? So traditional print and network news is fading, but the same corporations own the digital/internet media but this article identifies it as “independent”? The writers here can’t be that asleep behind the wheel……??
OFWG here. I haven’t bought a newspaper in years.Even then it was mostly to see estate/garage sale. I only watch the news to find out about disasters,weather and civil unrest. When PBS has a goofy anti-2A frontline attacking the NRA for being “too successful” I know where my $ isn’t going. IN Illinois we can have 3000 people show up in Springfield on a few hours notice to protest anti-gun votes but the lame-stream barely utters a peep. But they’ll show jesse jackson/fadder phelem protesting in front of Chucks Guns in Riverdale with their paid 20 useful idiots…if I want fluff I read Yahoo-even they have pro2a articles often. I only watch Fox to yell at O’reilly-nothing else really.
PBS is Soviet Sheit. Some programs are okay, the news slant just sucks.
Correlation ≠ causation, guys. Seriously.
Is it fading? Time running out for the antis? No. Just moving to a new venue, social media. Both sides seem to be doubling down and people divided further into their own echo chambers.
It’s funny, I follow both TTAG and MDA on Facebook (to better know mine enemy – and often they are posting the same thing. MDA or CSGV posts anti-gun drivel, TTAG reposts it. Guess who’s getting the most exposure out of the deal? (it’s not TTAG).
One thing is that the liberal media no longer have a hammer lock on the news. We will see more diversity in reporting and political slants and editorials.
In the 60’s three high profile assassinations brought about modern day gun control. People only had network news and print to go by. Information was easily controlled and public opinion shaped by the few. Colombine was the same thing. If Newtown had happened 20 years ago all magazine fed rifles would be banned by now. The only reason the latest “assault weapons” ban failed on the federal level is the internet got the real public sentiment noticed by those wanting to keep their cushy jobs. Old school media was pushing as hard as possible to make it happen but online masses fought back harder.
I hate to see local newspapers go dark, but to a large extent they brought it upon themselves. By not responding to a changing market, and by appealing to a reader group that doesn’t patronize the major advertisers, they signed their own slow-death warrant.
Comments are closed.