|
Mohammed
|
57 of 232? It's a start, but my fear is these worthless lefties will probably just end up in government jobs with better benefits.
|
|
Steve
|
For about three or four years a while back I was a dedicated Courant reader. Then I started graduate study in sociology and learned about things like structure and institutional interests. As I read and discussed classic research on journalism (see Tuchman, Gans, Gitlin, and Fishman's classic work that most journalist with a graduate degree would have read; and more recently Eric Klinenberg and Robert McChesney)) and the press I learned of other pressures that are more specific to media and that are much bigger than individual journalist's biases. I subsequently grew very frustrated with the Courant, and with the mainstream press in the U.S. in general. While I long for real 'watchdog' journalism, the type of journalism that knows power corrupts, governments lie, and corporate interests do not equate public interests, and understands things like strucutres and institutional pressures, I unfortunately have little hope in the managing editor's ability to really turn the Courant into an organization focused on investigative journalism or be the watchdog we citizens are so in need of. Regardless of the opinions and the goals of the individuals within media organizations, they remain subject to much broader institutional pressures that focus on making money, not offending certain segments of the population that they need to reach for their advertisers, and not offending those they rely on for access and information (neither liberal nor conservative issues). A real watchdog media can't grow out of the economic model our mainstream press (including the Courant) is built on. Interests of delivering the news, making money, and not offending certain people just don't fit together and we citizens suffer. To make a long story short (too late), unfortunately, I don't see any light at the end of this tunnel, at least not in the long run.
|
|
KevinM
|
Steve wrote: ... Regardless of the opinions and the goals of the individuals within media organizations, they remain subject to much broader institutional pressures that focus on making money, not offending certain segments of the population that they need to reach for their advertisers, and not offending those they rely on for access and information So you don't think that academic sociologists are subject to similar pressures?
|
|
Shoreliner
|
Mohammed wrote: 57 of 232? It's a start, but my fear is these worthless lefties will probably just end up in government jobs with better benefits. You make some good points. My issue with The Courant's strategy is that it does not address the core problem that the newspaper faces. In spite of Ms. Hunter's belief that The Courant shares a special bond with its readers, subscription numbers do not lie. Instead, The Courant's, at times, extreme liberal agenda has chased off many readers. In short, the 'new' Courant is management's way of taking the easy way one and not looking at the underlying causes of the newspaper's problems. Costcutting to profitability is not an enduring strategy.
|
|
Grace Slick
|
Judged:
1
The Courant's subscription numbers are down because it's available free on the internet. And with 5 posts in 11 hours, it doesn't appear anyone really cares.
|
|
KevinM
|
It seems to me that the plan to put more focus on local stories, emphasize well-written hard news, and adopt a smaller format is the best among various unpalatable plans. I say this because I think it puts the Courant in position to provide a product that isn't already being done as well or better by someone else.
Whether the plan will be ultimately successful -- even if it's well executed -- is an open question. But same ol, same ol won't help you.
Working against the plan is the irreversible habit people have acquired in picking up headline news from the Internet and the teevee. I urge you to consider overcoming this trend by devising a continuing plan to remarket the newspaper, not just to readers, but to all of your markets.
Don't just put out your new product and expect a routine promotional plan will carry the day. From the way it sounds, people will see a smaller Courant. You have to show everyone how it is a better Courant.
Also, the deep staff cuts will be staggering and will become part of Courant legend among employees. After the cuts, someone will stand up and announce, "Okay, this is our team! Let's put out a paper!" And the survivors will think, "Do we have S-T-U-P-I-D written on our foreheads?"
But good luck and thanks to all of you. I hope you pull it off and actually lit a candle for you this Sunday after church -- my RC parish.(I enjoy irony.)
P.S. I'm prolly to the right of everyone in the newsroom, but I think way too much is made of the Courant's "liberal bias." The editorials have tended to be dull, preachy, Pollyannaish and afflicted with groupthink. But I think the news pages simply frame stories in familiar ways that are common to many news outlets. Personally, I could do without the voyeuristic drama in the Courant's framing of the news, but there seem to be a lot of voyeurs out there.
Besides, it's possible for different people to come to different conclusions after looking at the same set of facts.
P.P.S. I agree with the comment some others have made about the sheer size of the Courant, especially on Sunday. After you recycle a number of unread papers, especially the 5-pound Sunday bomb, you begin to think, hmmmmm.
Finally -- there's really nothing wrong with tending bar in Vermont, though Key West would be better, if it comes to that. And Pittsburgh is pretty cool if you'd like a place that doesn't have hurricanes, is affordable, actually has major league teams and is walkable. Don't overlook Portland, Maine. It's hard to be in a bad mood in Maine, though some of the natives inland manage. Just stay South of Freeport.
|
|
edward allen
|
Who cares? The days of the HC having a monopoly over news, and selecting the news we read are gone. A lot of us are already on the Internet, reading the NYT and WaPo or some other publication. The HC has become irrelevant to our lives, and its coverage is now so weak that it looks like no one there cares, either.
|
|
Eye Gore
|
edward allen wrote: The days of the HC having a monopoly over news, and selecting the news we read are gone. A lot of us are already on the Internet, reading the NYT and WaPo or some other publication. WaPo? When was he last time WaPo covered a budget or board of education meeting? The NYT? Yes, we need to read all the news they see fit to print. Unfortunately, they only see fit to print one Hartford, Connecticut story per year. Get used to life under that rock. Just where do you think "The Internet" gets news? By using a scanner? Give me the Coo-runt any day. It only makes NYT and WaPo interested in what is contained inside the Filing Cabinet of New England.
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
KevinM, I'm not sure what your comment has to do with the issue, but I'm sure if you did a study of academic social scientists you'd find some institutional pressures (since they seem to exist everywhere). In fact, from my limited experience I'd say the big pressure is to produce safe, mainstream sociology so we can publish in the dominant, mainstream journals (since we're evaluated so heavily on publishing), despite the quality of our research. The issue, though, is that we should see what's happening to the Courant in a much broader context, and as something that should be of no surprise and with no real change for the better when it comes to real news and information that we need to be educated citizens. This is because of the organizational model that so much news media across the country (and virtually all mainstream news media) have adopted. We like to think that everyone in the media is running around trying to figure out what we consumers want for news and then giving it to us. That's the romanticized version of what happens. The fact is, we consumers are sold to sponsors or advertisers who want to reach us and our disposable income. We're attracted through content, but only content that attracts this specific valuable audience. Also, though, and just as important (and this is where the job cuts come in), is the fact that making news costs money, it's a big expense and its rate of return is not very strong. So, to continue to make money, news organizations across the country must cut down on the cost of making news. That results in the virtual absence of local news, and the standardization of news collection practices because they reduce the uncertainty and cut down on costly organizational risks. What's happening at the Courant, as I'm sure most people here know, is happening across the country at virtually every newspaper organization. We shouldn't expect it to somehow all of a sudden result in hard-hitting, investigative journalism that holds power accountable, and lives up the the lofty goals we have for news media in a democratic society. The basic institutional model hasn't changed, so how could someone's sincere efforts (and I do believe many journalists and editors are sincere in trying to provide valuable news) to offer real journalism be sustained against such an incessant and much broader pressure to cut down on expenses?
What I'm saying isn't anything radical, journalists say the same thing as polls show they're fed-up with the contractions between making profit and doing journalism (see some of the PEW Center's reports).
|
|
Shoreliner
|
Bob McCormick wrote: <quoted text>
Actually, it's circulation numbers are down because many people are reading it online for free.
I think your charge of liberal bias has little to do with the issue.
I don't understand how an enterprise can expect to continue charging people for something they give away. The WSJ online is a paid website and is wildly successful in spite of numerous (and growing) competition. People wil pay for a quality product. The Courant at this point is not a quality product.
|
|
Steve
|
Just to put this out there. The research on the news media in the U.S. shows that most news is framed in ways that assume a pro-corporate, and pro-two party system perspective where democrats and republicans really aren't that different and in fact, often share many of the same overarching ideas (e.g., more police to stop crime despite the lack of supportive evidence). See William Gamson's research for an example. When we look more specifically at the issue of republican/democrat we actually see more of a pro-republican tilt than anything else, namely because republicans tend to be more free-market and that's in the interest of the major conglomerates who control most of our news outlets. Though, we should be careful with this conclusion, because both republicans and democrats rely on big business in a number of ways that help their political careers and those 'favors' reverberate in the ways political debates are bounded and framed.(thus another factor explaining the common pro-business frames we see, at least in national news). For anyone who's interested look at Robert McChesney's research, or the number of studies that examine ideology and hegemony in the media.
I'm sure this comment will set off a fire-storm of replies, but hey, that's what the research says.
|
|
PnmiK
|
On July 8 Steve offered the conceited opinion that his July 8 "comment will set off a fire-storm of replies." It's past 2-weeks now, no fire-engine sirens have sounded, and his was still the last blog post prior to this one. But, hey, that's life.
|
Yellow Pages
Cars
Judge it!
45°F
Leo
Most Popular