Our tea party friends
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Let us endeavor....
Next: I am Kenneth Gladney
From: Jack Hollis on 30 Mar 2010 17:07 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:54:29 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:45:43 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> >wrote: > >>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:27:33 -0700 (PDT), "John B." >><johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>So perceived bias has nothing to do with people's decisions to buy or >>>not buy a particular paper? >> >>Of course it does. People usually buy a newspaper that agrees with >>their political point of view. > > >Attn: Jack, this was a response questioning a statement by Mike that >read: > >" Circulation has nothing to do with bias". > > >You made John's point for him. > >BK People usually do buy newspapers that agree with their point of view. If that's John's point, then I agree with him.
From: BAR on 30 Mar 2010 18:00 In article <56547851-54da-4c4c-b609-ce9705c6d72d@ 35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > On Mar 29, 10:20�pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > In article <5a2055c7-7dbc-4050-909f-3a218ef0bf30 > > @z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > If not, that says something definitive about newspaper readers. The > > > > > NYT has a circulation of 928,000 and is generally considered the most > > > > > influential newspaper in the world. The Wash. Times has a circulation > > > > > of 102,000 in a metro area of 5 million. > > > > > > The NYT is a joke. You cannot be the most influential newspaper in the > > > > world and be on a downward revenue spiral. > > > > > Why not? All newspapers are on a downward spiral. > > > > I guess it is which ever newspaper is on the slowest downward spiral > > gets the most credibility? > > No, that's not what it is, Bert. What determines credibility? Circulation? USA Today wins. Journalism prizes? They are all biased, they don't count. Revenue? Which newspaper has the greatest revenue? What is the objective criteria used to determine the creditability of newspapers?
From: John B. on 30 Mar 2010 18:29 On Mar 30, 6:00 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <56547851-54da-4c4c-b609-ce9705c6d72d@ > 35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 10:20 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <5a2055c7-7dbc-4050-909f-3a218ef0bf30 > > > @z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > If not, that says something definitive about newspaper readers. The > > > > > > NYT has a circulation of 928,000 and is generally considered the most > > > > > > influential newspaper in the world. The Wash. Times has a circulation > > > > > > of 102,000 in a metro area of 5 million. > > > > > > The NYT is a joke. You cannot be the most influential newspaper in the > > > > > world and be on a downward revenue spiral. > > > > > Why not? All newspapers are on a downward spiral. > > > > I guess it is which ever newspaper is on the slowest downward spiral > > > gets the most credibility? > > > No, that's not what it is, Bert. > > What determines credibility? Circulation? USA Today wins. > > Journalism prizes? They are all biased, they don't count. > > Revenue? Which newspaper has the greatest revenue? > > What is the objective criteria used to determine the creditability of > newspapers?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What determines influence is a paper's effect on the people and policies it reports on. A negative story about a public official in the Wash. Times will have virtually no impact. The same story in the NY Times may have a huge impact.
From: Carbon on 30 Mar 2010 18:31 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:35:26 -0700, Dinosaur_Sr wrote: > On Mar 29, 7:06 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:35:57 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: >>> "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >>> news:4bb12852$0$4986$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:48:22 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: >>>>> "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:4bae74f0$0$5115$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>>>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:43:41 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: >>>>>>> "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in >>>>>>> message news:clark-BFD3D6.12145423032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- >>>>>>> state.edu... >>>>>>>> In article <80s004Fug...(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" >>>>>>>> <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote >>>>>>>>> in message >>>>>>>>> news:clark-26F0AD.09151323032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- >>>>>>>>> state.edu... >>>>>>>>>> In article <451e2116-4df3-4719- >>>>>>>>>> b51f-66d4595a0...(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, kenpitts >>>>>>>>>> <ken.p...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so quick to believe Lewis and Conyers and so >>>>>>>>>>> quick to dismiss the story of Kenneth Gladney? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/10/i-am-kenneth- >>>>>>>>>>> gladney/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Because it is in the Moonies' Washington Times? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So because it appears in the Times it can't possibly be true >>>>>>>>> correct? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, it will almost certainly carry their strong bias. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just like the New York Times. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please tell me you're joking. >>>>> >>>>> The Wash. Times is no more biased than the NYT Times is. >>>> >>>> Are you insane? >>> >>> Do you actually believe the NYT is not biased? >> >> Your claim was that the NYT was as biased as the Washington Times, a >> cult rag and an embarrassment to journalism. > > I would have never thought a person like you would recognize that the > NYT is a cult rag that is an embarassment to journalism. Funny. So are all these sad little attempts to compare the NYT to a cult rag like the Washington Times, when clearly none of you true believers even read the NYT. On the other hand, a number of you seem to be big fans of the Washington Times. What a discerning bunch you guys are.
From: Carbon on 30 Mar 2010 18:35
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:17:33 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4bb1327c$0$27202$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:35:57 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: >>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >>> news:4bb12852$0$4986$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:48:22 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: >>>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:4bae74f0$0$5115$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>>>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:43:41 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: >>>>>>> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in >>>>>>> message >>>>>>> news:clark-BFD3D6.12145423032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- >>>>>>> state.edu... >>>>>>>> In article <80s004FugaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" >>>>>>>> <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>> news:clark-26F0AD.09151323032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- >>>>>>>>> state.edu... >>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>> <451e2116-4df3-4719- >>>>>>>>>> b51f-66d4595a0304(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, kenpitts >>>>>>>>>> <ken.ptts(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so quick to believe Lewis and Conyers and so quick >>>>>>>>>>> to dismiss the story of Kenneth Gladney? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/10/i-am-kenneth- >>>>>>>>>>> gladney/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Because it is in the Moonies' Washington Times? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So because it appears in the Times it can't possibly be true >>>>>>>>> correct? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, it will almost certainly carry their strong bias. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just like the New York Times. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please tell me you're joking. >>>>> >>>>> The Wash. Times is no more biased than the NYT Times is. >>>> >>>> Are you insane? >>> >>> Do you actually believe the NYT is not biased? >> >> Your claim was that the NYT was as biased as the Washington Times, a >> cult rag and an embarrassment to journalism. > > That would be your biased opinion of course. To save yourself future embarrassment: find a copy of the NY Times, then find a copy of the Washington Times (if you can). Read them both. I am assuming you're not so stupid that you can't spot the obvious difference in quality between the two. |