Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Why the Press Is on Suicide Watch

By Frank Rich, The New York Times. Posted May 13, 2009.


Newspapers are a self-destructive retreat from innovation -- what's going to stop them from total collapse?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Frank Rich

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

IF you wanted to pick the moment when the American news business went on suicide watch, it was almost exactly three years ago. That’s when Stephen Colbert, appearing at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, delivered a monologue accusing his hosts of being stenographers who had, in essence, let the Bush White House get away with murder (or at least the war in Iraq). To prove the point, the partying journalists in the Washington Hilton ballroom could be seen (courtesy of C-Span) fawning over government potentates -- in some cases the very “sources” who had fed all those fictional sightings of Saddam Hussein’s W.M.D.

Colbert’s routine did not kill. The Washington Post reported that it “fell flat.” The Times initially did not even mention it. But to the Beltway’s bafflement, Colbert’s riff went viral overnight, ultimately to have a marathon run as the most popular video on iTunes. The cultural disconnect between the journalism establishment and the public it aspires to serve could not have been more vividly dramatized.

The bad news about the news business has accelerated ever since. Newspaper circulations and revenues are in free fall. Legendary brands from The Los Angeles Times to The Philadelphia Inquirer are teetering. The New York Times Company threatened to close The Boston Globe if its employees didn’t make substantial sacrifices in salaries and benefits. Other papers have died. The reporting ranks on network and local news alike are shriveling. You know it’s bad when the Senate is moved, as it was last week, to weigh in with hearings on “The Future of Journalism.”

Not all is bleak on the Titanic, however. The White House correspondents’ bacchanal was on tap for this weekend. And this time no one could accuse the revelers of failing to get down with the Colbert-iTunes-Facebook young folk: hip big-time journalists now stroke their fans with 140-character messages on Twitter. Or did. No sooner did boldface Washington media personalities ostentatiously embrace Twitter than Nielsen reported that more than 60 percent of Twitter users abandon it after a single month.

The causes of journalism’s downfall — some self-inflicted, some beyond anyone’s control (a worldwide economic meltdown) — are well known. To time-travel back to the dawn of the technological strand of the disaster, search YouTube for “1981 primitive Internet report on KRON.” What you’ll find is a 28-year-old local television news piece from San Francisco about a “far-fetched,” pre-Web experiment by the city’s two papers, The Chronicle and The Examiner, to distribute their wares to readers with home computers via primitive phone modems. Though there were at most 3,000 people in the Bay Area with PCs then, some 500 mailed in coupons for the service to The Chronicle alone. But, as the anchorwoman assures us at the end, with a two-hour download time (at $5 an hour), “the new telepaper won’t be much competition for the 20-cent street edition.”


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: frank rich, newspapers, media industry

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Adhere to integrity and report the truth.
Posted by: weathered on May 13, 2009 2:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one likes to be Lied to. Newspapers will flourish again, if they decouple their toxic link w/corporate/political agenda.

As long as the NYTimes continues to act as a publicist/pr firm and not a courageous conveyor of balanced reporting it'll be marginalized and will have no one to blame but themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Government subsidies vs. corporatization
Posted by: Perry Logan on May 13, 2009 2:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's worth noting that newspapers rose by government and fell by corporatization.

Our now-dying system of local newspapers owes its existence to the government. The early newspapers were given free postage, which made their growth possible.

So we owe our once-flourishing free press to government subsidies.

Then, just a few years back, these great newspapers all got corporatized. Now they're all dead.

Do the math.


Xe Technology: We Mean No Harm to Your Planet

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Postal rates have changed Posted by: chaoslegs
A small price to pay for their treachery
Posted by: StillStanding on May 13, 2009 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The looming bankruptcies of most of the nation's corporate press should be a source of joy, not regret. I, for one, will be glad when the last of these fascist propaganda mills shutters its doors.

It's ironic that Frank Rich works for the NY Times, considering that Judith Miller once worked there, uncritically "reporting" the Pentagon's Iraq pronouncements. The Times deserves to fall, as does WaPo, because they have actively contributed to propping up one of history's most corrupt governments.

Meanwhile, new media sources have arisen that have made the MSM irrelevant. Even Alternet, with its center-left content, is far more informative than the dinosaurs of journalism.

I say good riddance!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Colbert is right.......they are stenographers. Real journalists would tackle 9/11. Alternet?
Posted by: pfgetty on May 13, 2009 4:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet, are you listening?

Colbert said that one reason newspapers are failing is because they only present what the government wants them to present........as we saw with WMD. That issue, WMD, and how it was handled by the press was a disgusting display showing just how corruptible our press has become. Our press needs to fail and wither.

But just as disgusting is the media's handling of the facts of 9/11. We were told a story by the government that is so ridiculous and full of holes, but the media INCLUDING ALTERNET, will not touch any of it.

Piles of evidence proving that our government was complicit in 9/11. Overwhelming evidence that the official story is a lie.
But Alternet and the nation's newspapers will not touch the issue.

I want to know why. I'd like to know why Alternet would present an article telling us that the media is failing because it will not tackle real stories that aren't handfed by the government, and yet this is just what Alternet is doing with 9/11.

What is it? What keeps all of the media away from investigating the gigantic holes in the story of 9/11? Is it threats from the government? Pressures from certain groups? Is Alternet associated with a group that would be harmed by the exposure to the truth of 9/11?
It has got to be one of those three. Maybe loss of funding is the pressure. It would be interesting to see just where Alternet gets its funding.

Can you tell us, Alternet, where you get a lot of your funding. I sent a donation before I realized that you were part of a conspiracy to keep the public from the truth on 9/11. You MUST be getting some funding from groups. Are these groups related to big oil companies, weapons companies? Are they related to either Christian or Jewish Zionist groups? All of these groups might be hurt if the real story of 9/11 were presented and finally realized by the American people.

Alternet has the reputation of presenting articles that dig into the corruption and lies of our government and big interest groups.
But in the 9/11 controversy, it is completely silent.
There IS a reason. Some group is either pressuring Alternet, or Alternet IS part of one of those groups. And it is a group that would be hurt if the truth of 9/11 ever came out.
Does ANYBODY know anything about this? We need to get to the core of this. Alternet is defrauding its readers for an agenda of a special interest group. There is no other reason Alternet would avoid bringing to us information about the biggest story in history.

Can you give us any information, Alternet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» GuitarBill? Posted by: linecrosser
» I'd rather ask Silverstein Posted by: weathered
Getting back to "Real Journalism" is the only hope for them
Posted by: Caleb Darkstar on May 13, 2009 4:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The newspaper industry has a golden opportunity to establish itself as the last entity of REAL JOURNALISM.

This of course, would require them to practice balanced and factual reporting and display a certain level of journalistic integrity. Instead they compete with internet smear sites for sensationalism.

Its hard to compete with someone who leaves no name, proves no facts, and bears no repercussions for thier lack of truthful content.

The paper industry will have to find integrity to survive. That is. people will have to believe that the content within the pages is as real and as tangible as the paper they are holding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Tyrant's Friend, The People's Foe
Posted by: PaulK on May 13, 2009 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Almost all crusading newspapers have been bought up, most by arch-conservative owners. They liked the idea that they can monopolize a town's access to news, thus owning the people's dreams. Also, the papers have become extremely friendly to corporations.

The paper charges outrageous prices for obituaries now. They've hollowed out most of their news to national rip-and-read coverage. Meanwhile, for sale ads are free and get results on Craigslist.

Our local monopoly "paper of record" is dying. It very well may be dead before the end of 2009. The editorial page has been pretty Nazi for quite a few years, making them pretty unreadable. I won't miss that part too much.

The best local TV news channel has also pretty much been hollowed out this year. It's turning into national rip-and-read, always about terribly gory and depraved sexual assaults and murders in some place that I've not been. Most of the radio channels have also been bought up by arch-conservative monopolists. They outright lie a lot these days. Barack Obama is a Muslim?

I shall have to get by on internet video clips for my news. Local internet coverage will just have to develop itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who cares about the sloppy news media? Go watch some cartoons for a change.
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS on May 13, 2009 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plenty to have fun at there plus I get to enjoy my dinners better. I'm gonna enjoy watching more of "The Simpsons" tonight and eating a couple of cheese steak subs with beer !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey, it's only paper and ink.
Posted by: grindermonkey on May 13, 2009 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How could a real newspaper go bankrupt? It couldn't. News is free, talk is cheap. The last time I looked at a newspaper I only found about 3% of it was information and the rest was glitzy advertising, womens underwear commercials and goofy photos. The previous post that talked about corporatism had it right. If they all went bankrupt today a man with some sawdust and black ink could begin again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can't trust the news
Posted by: jaylindberg@hotmail.com on May 13, 2009 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Newspapers cannot be trusted, that's the bottom line.

Newspapers make more money withholding the truth than exposing it because the criminals and the thieves that control this country simply buys their silence. It really is that simple.

Have you ever wondered why you cannot get an honest story on the Drug war in the newspapers?
Your newspapers signed editorial policies with the ONDCP (Office of national Drug Control Policy). That decision is connected to several billion dollars in advertising deals controlled by the government. That model is duplicated every day with government entities, corporate powers and wealthy / influential individuals.

The newspapers are taking a dive because we cannot trust them. We cannot trust them because they have lied to us consistently and they have lied to us consistently because they were paid to do it.

Here is an old activist assessment. If the government didn't lie to us, we would never hear from them.

Jay Lindberg

Author of "Drug War Economics". If you would like a copy send me your e-mail address and I will send it to you as a PDF file. It is free.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE NEWSPAPERS STOPPED REPORTING NEWS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 13, 2009 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During the Bush administration our news was censored. The newspapers filled the pages with a variety of 'stuff' but nothing much of any importance. They tried to find a way to survive. Along came the internet and other sources of real news and the papers were left behind. The numbers of young people with an interest in journalism and reporting is very encouraging. So there will be news, it's a matter of how it's transmitted to us. I miss the old morning paper routine. Rather than building huge conglomerates, writers and reporters should think about combining their talents and making small independent papers available. It's possible to earn a good living, inform the public and survive without a multi million dollar building in a high rent district. We don't want frills, just the news. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Barny Frank syndrome Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
The Press Killed Itself
Posted by: Outspokengrandmother on May 13, 2009 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I put down the LA Times for the last time two years ago when after mouth piecing for George Bush for all those years - a front page story told us that we had nothing to worry about with falling housing prices because the worst was almost over. I had seen the disaster that would be Iran before the troops left American shores. I had talked my kids out of buying a house near the top of the market because I saw the coming bubble burst. But it wasn't until that moment that I fully realized that the Los Angeles Times was a propaganda machine that would never understand that trust built on honesty was the coin of that realm. I sympathize with the demise of the newspapers, but they haven't acted as credible news providers for years. Huffington Post has picked up stories that the big papers missed - so much for reportage. They actively lead us into the Iraq debacle. They failed to warn about the housing bubble. They supported the crimes of Bush and Cheney digging no deeper than the surface and hiring neocons as credible pundits for their pages. They helped Cheney with his vicious attack on Valarie Plame. A thousand nicks at their credibility finally killed them. I would say that the papers desserted their readers, leaving them to search for other - actually credible - sources of news and information. What we need are credible sources of news - we don't need tree killing newspapers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

who cares, we got the net and the few can read between the lines
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on May 13, 2009 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as far as I'm the right wing extremist DHS warned you about the AlterNet is very informative. Huff Puff is nothing more than a Sarah Palin tab rag that like MSNBC is too willing to play full kissie face with any "Friendly" in Washington or Wall Street. Yea the MSn-13 will report the "fake outrage" just to get the plebes and serfs all ginned up on horseshit outrage while behind the scenes the Bankserts and Capital pop another bottle as the Treasury is printing money like Leonardo DiCaprio in that movie "Catch Me If You Can."

Yes Stagflation is a very very bad thing right now but if all hell breaks lose, you'll be able to afford a newspaper and some more koolaid to sip on while you are clipping coupons to save a few bucks at Whole Foods... only a matter of time before you get to shopping at Aldis as you bitterly find out there is a different taste vs store brand fruit loops and and Kellogg's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Relax and enjoy the ride
Posted by: willymack on May 13, 2009 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The days of the legendary reporters, Clark Kent and Lois Lane are gone. Newspapers may or may not survive modern trends. In the meantime, sites such as this one are much better than most newspapers, anyway. Less newsprint will mean less landfill. If you can carry something lightweight and portable like an Amazon Kindle, for instance, and instantly access any news source, what's the need for a paper anyway?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The internet is a better source of news
Posted by: ReallyBearish on May 13, 2009 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a substantial amount of news available on the internet that never makes the general media. For example, numerous sources were reporting on the problem with OTC derivatives going back 10 years at least. It barely made a mention in the MSM, even after the near collapse of the banking system due mostly to OTC derivatives at the end of last year.

Right now stock short sellers are out of control. Brokerage houses list more shares owned by their clients then were authorized to be issued by the companies in question. Some companies have double the number of shares held by stock owners than the company authorized. These are most likely the result of naked short selling. What major papers are covering this story, or any of a host of other major problems with Wall Street?

Newspapers deserve to go out of business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need newspapers ...
Posted by: chomsky on May 13, 2009 12:11 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How else can I start the fire in my woodstove ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sick & Tired
Posted by: madmac10 on May 13, 2009 1:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of this silly story. Thank God most of the commenters here at least get the surface issue: that newspapers have abandoned their mission and deserve what they get. However, I must emphasize that this is just the surface.

Anyone remember what Picasso said? "A true artist [journalist] will paint [write] in the dust with his tongue." Does anyone here read Danny Schechter's News Dissector? Now there is a true journalist--one who can stand with I.F. Stone and Edward R. Murrow.

Perhaps the fact that many of these institutions' assets were so heavily leveraged in credit default swaps came as something of a surprise. Perhaps too, it was a bit of quick improvisation to blame the collapse on the internet. Too bad General Motors cannot deflect the issue so well.

If only Rupert Murdoch had never come along; then perhaps I'd jump on board with the rabble who are now clamoring for a government bailout of newspapers. If only David Geffen wasn't considering buying interest in the New York Times. If only Free Press hadn't prescribed a congressional "R&D Fund" and "Federal Writers Project." Tell me, who would you trust in government to oversee all this, after all that has happened to us?

I think I can safely avoid the loony conspiracist label with all this speculation. I seriously believe that, aside from the serendipitous collapse of the economy, all this talk is part of some orwellian plan. Even so, I honestly suggest that Americans start THINKING FOR YOURSELVES instead--because I swear, there's no one more trustworthy than the one behind your eyes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who Cares About the Racist, War Mongering Big Press?
Posted by: Nuuon on May 13, 2009 4:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aaawwh. . .

The big fat arrogant big press is on the verge of collapsing. What a damn shame. . .

You know the big press I'm talking about:

1) The one that only cares about missing children when they are blond and blue-eyed.

2) The one that only features stories on the trials of tribulations of particular white soldiers at war (apparently, "only whites are brave heroes who are risking their lives").

3) The one that only cares about crime victims when they live in suburban white communities or urban "upper-crust stylish" white communities.

4) The one that apparently believes that all blacks are poor and/or criminal.

5) The one that is STILL treating black reporters like mere tokens.

6) The one that let Bush get away with all those lies on the road to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

7) The one that didn't commit even a single reporter to do a REAL investigation of what REALLY happened on 9/11.

8) The one that is pro-business and anti-union.

9) The one that employs all of those goddamn racist sports reporters.

10) The one that employs all those right-wing and pseudo liberal "opinion makers."

11) The one that is responsible for so much deforestation.

12) The one that consolidated itself into a massive mega-corporation owned by the super-rich: too unwieldy to function without mega-bucks.

Yeah, THAT press.

I don't give a f*ck about THAT big press!

I stopped buying that big press 25 years ago, and the rest of America is finally catching up (Stopped reading them every day-- only used them for research: If I couldn't get it for free in a library, or later, on the net, I did without it).

May THAT big press rot in peace and never return.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gimmie shelter
Posted by: gimmie shelter on May 13, 2009 4:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Media lies to us then we do not need them, we already have the government for that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gimmie shelter
Posted by: gimmie shelter on May 13, 2009 6:49 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The curtain has been drawn back and what we see are systematic lies. Does anyone remember how much some reporters were paid by our government to spew their lies and misinformation? Even if the papers suddenly grew a backbone to the governments whims how could we believe them. Our country has been lost to us for a very long time and it is only now that we begin to grapple with the loss. Thanks to the local newspapers we get to see just how great this loss is each and everyday because of the lack of useful information they are allowed to disseminate. We all miss the truth but not the lies. Save a tree and don't read what you know is false.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did you see the Newspaper article on Single Payer ?
Posted by: mmckinl on May 13, 2009 11:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neither did I ...

I agree with most of the other posters ...

The Newspapers have become corporate cheerleaders and news censors for their corporate owners ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

perhaps it's the corporate structure that's to blame--corporations almost always
Posted by: Suzon on May 14, 2009 3:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
concentrate power at the top. That means that the people who are running the corporations tend to look after themselves first and foremost. The actual business is only relevant as a way of making money.

Chomsky explains that newspapers are in the business of selling readers to advertisers. Advertisers are other corporations like banks, insurance companies, car manufacturers, etc. Newspapers which would tell the truth about the interests and machinations of the corporate world--how likely would they get the advertisement revenue?

The corporation is a monarchist anti-democratic institution which is the enemy of the people. It is the means by which the richest become richer still at the expense of ordinary people and the planet. Because of corporate donations we have what Palast termed the best democracy that money can buy.

Generally speaking, what's good for the New York Times is not good for the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement