You have a built-in hatred of newspapers. It sounds like you wouldn't want them improved even if they could be. I wonder if you are old enough to recall what they were like before they became propaganda. Go your way.
Let’s just say, why cut down the Amazon rain forest if you don’t have to? Newspapers in their day were fine. I delivered them when I was young. Sundays were a bitch and my hands were always blue with ink. In bigger cities there were competing papers, usually one was more liberal. Then most places only had one and that one became more and more liberal. Over time readership started declining until now they need life support. They’ve become like telephone booths in a world of cell phones. No longer needed.
I laugh about "cutting down forests." I live in the Pacific Northwest. If forests hadn't been cut down, there would be no place to live and no farming. Current harvesting of trees is about every 7 to 10 years between crops. In my lifetime, I have seen at least 4 cycles of logging and renewal on a particular hill south of Bellingham. In the right climate, trees grow like weeds. Cutting down trees for paper is no worse than cutting down wheat for bread (we do that, too).
I think the readership started declining well before the advent of the internet, as television and talk radio began to command an audience. And that was because the content of newspapers were empty calories at that point. But it was the lack of substantial content that was the killer, not the medium. And newspapers are still alive on the internet, the ones good enough to still command an audience.
In a world of cell phones, whose batteries can be exhausted or can be lost over a guardrail, it would be a lifesaver to find a telephone booth.
But kudos to you for living the life and having seen it for yourself. Too bad things had to slide. It probably traces back to the contamination of the journalism schools, putting social progressivism above truth-telling.
You have a built-in hatred of newspapers. It sounds like you wouldn't want them improved even if they could be. I wonder if you are old enough to recall what they were like before they became propaganda. Go your way.
Let’s just say, why cut down the Amazon rain forest if you don’t have to? Newspapers in their day were fine. I delivered them when I was young. Sundays were a bitch and my hands were always blue with ink. In bigger cities there were competing papers, usually one was more liberal. Then most places only had one and that one became more and more liberal. Over time readership started declining until now they need life support. They’ve become like telephone booths in a world of cell phones. No longer needed.
I laugh about "cutting down forests." I live in the Pacific Northwest. If forests hadn't been cut down, there would be no place to live and no farming. Current harvesting of trees is about every 7 to 10 years between crops. In my lifetime, I have seen at least 4 cycles of logging and renewal on a particular hill south of Bellingham. In the right climate, trees grow like weeds. Cutting down trees for paper is no worse than cutting down wheat for bread (we do that, too).
I think the readership started declining well before the advent of the internet, as television and talk radio began to command an audience. And that was because the content of newspapers were empty calories at that point. But it was the lack of substantial content that was the killer, not the medium. And newspapers are still alive on the internet, the ones good enough to still command an audience.
In a world of cell phones, whose batteries can be exhausted or can be lost over a guardrail, it would be a lifesaver to find a telephone booth.
But kudos to you for living the life and having seen it for yourself. Too bad things had to slide. It probably traces back to the contamination of the journalism schools, putting social progressivism above truth-telling.