Comments on: Houston Chronicle Buries Own Layoff Story http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/houston-chronicle-buries-own-layoff-story.html Chronicling the Decline of Newspapers and the Rebirth of Journalism Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:46:00 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Barry http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/houston-chronicle-buries-own-layoff-story.html/comment-page-1#comment-4237 Barry Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:26:23 +0000 http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/?p=1501#comment-4237 Thanks for including the Randy Siegel response to the Time article and Jeff Jarvis. I think he has a point, though the conflict of interest that he notes extends beyond the financial, I think. The prevailing narrative on internet journalism sites is that newspapers will die and be replaced by something web-based. Period. It's a law of nature, survival of the fittest, an evolutionary certainty determined by the mechanisms of communication. Anyone who suggests an alternatives that involve outside influence on this neat scheme are either anti-evolutionary (and therefore, um, not smart) or counter-revolutionary. Which explains the scornful reaction to the Newspaper Revitalization Act on journalism sites. All the Revitalization Act is intended to do is protect a public good. We can debate whether it's necessary (which possibly internet-based journalists would want to do) or whether we think it would be effective. But if Tim Windsor's thin rebuttal is the best out there, the neither question has been engaged convincingly. The existence of this dominant narrative also explains the scant internet attention to the <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090406/nichols_mcchesney/single?rel=n" rel="nofollow">John Nichols/Robert McChesney essay in the The Nation</a>, which calls for a massive public investment in newspapers, specifically, and journalism in general. Again, its suggestions would overturn the narrative in various ways (primarily by upsetting the "free market" economic model for both newspapers and internet sites), and so I've read very little about it on journalism sites (such as this one). This is the first time I've joined the conversation here, but I've visited a lot the past year and appreciate the effort and thinking that goes into it. Thanks! Thanks for including the Randy Siegel response to the Time article and Jeff Jarvis. I think he has a point, though the conflict of interest that he notes extends beyond the financial, I think. The prevailing narrative on internet journalism sites is that newspapers will die and be replaced by something web-based. Period. It’s a law of nature, survival of the fittest, an evolutionary certainty determined by the mechanisms of communication. Anyone who suggests an alternatives that involve outside influence on this neat scheme are either anti-evolutionary (and therefore, um, not smart) or counter-revolutionary. Which explains the scornful reaction to the Newspaper Revitalization Act on journalism sites. All the Revitalization Act is intended to do is protect a public good. We can debate whether it’s necessary (which possibly internet-based journalists would want to do) or whether we think it would be effective. But if Tim Windsor’s thin rebuttal is the best out there, the neither question has been engaged convincingly.

The existence of this dominant narrative also explains the scant internet attention to the John Nichols/Robert McChesney essay in the The Nation, which calls for a massive public investment in newspapers, specifically, and journalism in general. Again, its suggestions would overturn the narrative in various ways (primarily by upsetting the “free market” economic model for both newspapers and internet sites), and so I’ve read very little about it on journalism sites (such as this one).

This is the first time I’ve joined the conversation here, but I’ve visited a lot the past year and appreciate the effort and thinking that goes into it. Thanks!

]]> By: msbpodcast http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/houston-chronicle-buries-own-layoff-story.html/comment-page-1#comment-4235 msbpodcast Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:38:33 +0000 http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/?p=1501#comment-4235 The paper had "No Comment" because the guy who'd write the comment was laid off. That's so obvious. The paper had “No Comment” because the guy who’d write the comment was laid off.

That’s so obvious.

]]> By: Paul http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/houston-chronicle-buries-own-layoff-story.html/comment-page-1#comment-4229 Paul Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:04:40 +0000 http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/?p=1501#comment-4229 in regards to "Publisher Fights Back at Newspaper Critics" I agree with him that the daggers are out for newspapers, unfortunately many of our endangered newspapers regularly engage in the same type of sloppy and hidden bias writing. Without thinking too hard I can come up with: the non-critical reporting on the AIG bonus witch hunt, anti-Detroit auto bias, constantly whining about the price of newsprint even when newsprint prices were falling, etc. Sorry to say but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. in regards to “Publisher Fights Back at Newspaper Critics”

I agree with him that the daggers are out for newspapers, unfortunately many of our endangered newspapers regularly engage in the same type of sloppy and hidden bias writing. Without thinking too hard I can come up with: the non-critical reporting on the AIG bonus witch hunt, anti-Detroit auto bias, constantly whining about the price of newsprint even when newsprint prices were falling, etc. Sorry to say but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

]]>