Many people feel the news is already “all propaganda all the time.” Only the Parliament of Clocks ensures it’s from a monolithic point of view.

The concept is being lost that it’s possible for reasonable people to disagree. On anything. That’s not healthy.

UK newspapers would however love to have the US newspapers’ profit margins. In the UK broadsheet papers, the Telegraph is barely profitable, the Times rarely makes a profit, the Independent has never (to my knowledge) made a profit and the Guardian doesn’t even try! (Amusingly, the Guardian’s official position is ‘profit seeking’). Also it should be noted that the biggest (by a country mile) news site in the UK is the BBC (which is entirely funded by tax-payers and therefore I guess could be described as ‘tax seeking’).

One thing that surprised me was how poorly Time is doing (especially when they are basically giving it away for free to subscribers). Nearly all the UK news and current affairs magazines (The Week, Economist, Spectator, New Statesman, Private Eye etc) are doing well at the moment. Part of that is due to them putting together great products (The Economist, Private Eye and the Spectator are all excellent). However I also think there is a structural change going on. My own hyposisis is that as people get more and more of their daily news online, they are giving up on their daily paper but they still want a print news digest therefore they are moving to the weekly magazines. Not sure why that isn’t the same in the US.

The honesty will be a breath of fresh air after decades of toxic hidden agendas.

“People seem pissed off enough as it is.”

No amount of open bias will be half as infuriating as CNN’s sandbagging the Republicans at their “debate.”

Even The Manchester Union Leader has called CNN’s dishonest bias “bad journalism.”

CNN’s subsequent stonewalling is enraging.

“Where does this help?”

Open bias offers the change to engage in an honest manner.

Otherwise people are forced to resort to gotcha games, like Don Surber’s “Name that Party.”

“It’s like the article recently published here that Yellow Journalism is a good thing. Can someone tell me what I’m missing here?”

Honesty.

A final note on the economy, from American Journalism Review, Oct/Nov 2007, Newspapers are paying the price for shortsighted thinking.

[Emphasis was in the original.]

“Newspapers’ performance hasn’t been this bad since the 2001 recession, when revenue slipped nearly 6 percent and profit was down more than 26 percent. And this year the nation is not in a recession. But the newspaper industry surely is, and it is worthwhile examining why.”

Oh, and it’s too late for Page 3 girls to save newspapers in the USA, even the tabloids.

He commented, “I can’t seem to understand how openly biased news will improve anything. People seem pissed off enough as it is where does this help? It’s like the article recently published here that Yellow Journalism is a good thing. Can someone tell me what I’m missing here?”

My answer:
“Thomas Jefferson believed in a country in which freedom was preserved by a multitude of voices competing in a freewheeling marketplace of ideas. He particularly liked the process of “attack and defense,” which in a letter to George Washington he supported by claiming that “Nature has given to man no other means of sifting out the truth whether in religion, law, or politics.” Debating and arguing is very American, a way to preserve our individual rights. Now compare that to what we have now…mainstream media that in fact is giving us a monolithic partisan position — center-left — while claiming it to be “truth” and denying others with opposing views the dignity of acknowledging there are other reasonable alternative positions. In my mind, that is the main reason why people are so “pissed off” now. It is out of frustration. We will all have the satisfaction of expressing our views, and greater tolerance for others’ views, in a world of free expression. Who can deny that this is what the First Amendment is all about?”

The American system makes it easier for the left-elite to confirm what they already believe, while leaving everyone else dissatisfied. This leads to a misinformed or uninformed populace.

Murdoch, with Fox, provides a true improvement in American journalism: choice and entertainment. He mixes hard factual news (e.g. Britt Hume) with opinion (O’Reilly and H&C), sprinkles in “true crime” with Gretta (ugh) and puts in a regular dose of T&A with video reports about Victoria Secret fashion shows, etc. It’s a formula that works.

Whatever happens, it is time for the media elites of America (like the ridiculous Dan Rather) to be knocked off their pedestals and retired. Lippmann was wrong. O’Sullivan’s second law dominates the news (organizations not explicitly conservative will become liberal), and unbiased factual presentation is merely a fantasy that the media tries to believe and foist on us. Screw ‘em.

Which part of the article leads you to that decision?

Not that journalism seems to be a wise career choice in the USA today.

From Bob Norman’s “The Daily Pulp” we have Newspapers Free Fall (Illustrated).

McClatchy’s on deathwatch, even online revenue is falling.