By Barb Shelly, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
A long time ago, I helped save a fish shop. It was on a grimy corner of Syracuse, N.Y. City zoning policies had led to rampant vagrancy in the neighborhood.
The shop was run down, and so was its proprietor. But he livened up when I stopped by, identified myself as a reporter for the local newspaper, and asked how he was doing.
“I’ll show you how I’m doing,” he said, and stormed out to his back parking lot, which was littered with liquor bottles.
“This is how I’m doing,” the fish vendor said, and started flinging bottles around.
Smash. Smash. Smash. It made a great story for me and dramatic shots for our photographer.
About a month later, I drove by the fish shop and couldn’t believe it was the same place. Its faded gray exterior was now bright red, and the boarded-up windows were replaced with Plexiglas.
“When you put me in the paper, it gave me hope,” the fish vendor said. Plus, the story had prompted police to step up enforcement.
That was, for me, the best of days, when I knew my work could make a difference.
I think of the fish vendor every time another nail gets pounded into the coffin of journalism as I have known it and practiced it for 30 years.
Newspapers are jettisoning staff and taking extreme measures to survive.
Detroit’s two dailies rocked the profession this week by announcing they’ll deliver to homes only three days a week. People who wish to read the news of their city the other days can buy the paper at a newsstand or go online. It’s possible that at least one major city will be without a print newspaper at the end of 2009.
The problem, boiled down, is that readers and advertisers are moving from newsprint to the Internet, but Internet advertisements pay only a fraction of print ads.
Then along came the recession, and companies slashed their advertising budgets further. Industrywide, ad revenues dropped 18 percent in the third quarter of this year over the same period in 2007.
We in this business can’t seek a bailout.
It’s difficult to be a watchdog of government if you’re beholden to it.
We don’t ask for the public’s sympathy for our uncertain future, or even our laid-off, dearly missed colleagues. Workers in all kinds of fields are unemployed.
But we appreciate, more than you can know, the show of support from people who are coming forward to tell us that, love it or hate it, they can’t imagine losing their daily newspaper.
A strange reality about newspaper journalism is that, while losing profits, it actually is gaining consumers.
Savvy Internet users understand that, when they call up their favorite site, be it the Huffington Post, Townhall or Tony’s Kansas City, much of the information that’s linked to or commented upon originated from a newspaper or wire service.
But the public has come to expect to consume its journalism for free. Even if you’re cutting out print and delivery expenses, it costs money for reporters to keep up with the antics of Mayor Mark Funkhouser or to report on how lawmakers in Jefferson City and Topeka are spending tax dollars.
Everyone in this business is trying to figure out how to make journalism profitable.
The answer may be to charge consumers to download content on the Internet. It may be the creation of niche publications that command enough ads to subsidize news-gathering. It may be a switch to non-profit, foundation-supported ownership.
It may be all of the above, or none of the above.
Journalism will be practiced in some form. But the world is changing, and what I see at the end of a terrible year is a fraying community connection.
Internet sites can give you the big stories. Bloggers can give you opinions and snappy lines. Watchdog sites can give you good investigative reports.
But if newspapers die, what forum will exist for stories like the fish vendor’s? Small in the scheme of things but large to the persons involved.
Barbara Shelly is a member of the editorial board. She can be reached at 816-234-4594 or . She blogs at voices.kansascity.com








Delicious
Digg
KC, I don't want to get off
KC,
I don't want to get off the subject of news papers but I'll say my opinion of Funk has changed since I voted for him. If the missus is going to run the show we voters should have been told. I don't think volunteers should be running meetings that are the mayor's job. Frankly, I just think he's a guy who can't tell her no. But that's neither here nor there. It's news when the mayor and his volunteer are getting the city sued and costing the tax payer money. I don't know the truth about what transpired with Ms Bates, she may be a gold digger or the pawn of other factions at city hall but nonetheless it's news. I see a definite POV in the postings here and on the editorial page but the news stories seem to be simple declarative statements except quotes attributed to one party or the other. Frankly, I don't follow the issue that closely. I guess my position is; I like having a daily paper in ink on paper. I know it's outmoded and likely to wane along with real books but I'll miss them. As you'll see from my very first post on this thread it's more to me that just a source of information. A Kindle just isn't the same.
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
Radical, I don't know twas'
Radical, I don't know twas' thoughts on the "fairness doctrine", but I am totally against this intrusion of again govt. in the private enterprise arena. I agree the star has a RIGHT to publish as they see fit, and I, as a customer had the right to refuse to buy the product, which I did.
On the other hand, I do appreciate their offering this blog, without, at least in my case, any type of censorship, even when I used the q word, which I agree was in poor taste. It was just a juvenile slip for which I am sorry. I am not homophobic, and my BEST boss back in the working days was a lesbian whom I respected and in fact loved. She is a good person.
The final straw for me with respect to the star was what I felt was the unwarranted attacks on the Funk. He seems to be a decent person who came in office with great hopes of doing the city some good. God only knows with its dysfunctional city council & school board and financial mess caused by Barnes & Cleaver it needs the help. the star since he was not part of the good-ole-boys purposely went after him and his wife IMO which really pissed me off. So, I voted with my pocketbook. The endorsements I expected and for the most part ignored.
I felt and continue to feel if his wife wants to help him and the city by volunteering, fine. I know if my wife had offered to "help" me during the working days I would have probably committed suicide, but everyone goes to a different drummer. I think Bates is merely a money grubber and she found a lawyer willing to take the case for a piece of the action... Welcome to American jurisprudence..
You know KCGRH, Twas,
You know KCGRH, Twas, reading your posts about who's biased in which way a person would think that you two conservatives would be in favor of restoring the fairness doctrine. Eh? I think it's OK to have a point of view so long as the consumer understands what they're getting. What troubles me are the folks who cite FOX or MSNBC as incontrovertible truth. Those folks are deluded. I listen to Keith Obermann because he's funny and pokes fun at Bill-O and others on the right. I don't for a minute believe that it the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It's entertainment. They get paid large sums of money and have huge staffs that put this together for them. Jeez guys I know you know this.
So, the Star has a point of view. It has it's conservative representation (not as much as you'd like )but some. I never miss David Brooks and really miss Molly Ivans. The straight ticker stuff seems pretty objective, I like the features, catch the occasional bargain from the ads, keep up with sports & local business and in this forum I've encountered some intelligent and cogent conservative commentary so... ?
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
dr_shawn, Done. You go
dr_shawn,
Done. You go first and the big 0 will follow second with the abstinence funding I am sure...
I bet abstinence funding goes LONG before NPR funding goes. Part of the wonderous change we are going to be seeing IMO....
I do agree both are things the federal govt. has no business or constitutional right to be doing.
Kcgrh - I'll trade you
Kcgrh - I'll trade you one.
Your NPR funding for my Abstinence education funding.
I think according to the next link that NPR gets ... 2% from government. Compared to government spending of $50 million for abstinence. What a comparison.
You might want to check out the NPR stats here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio
You cut out government abstinence funding I'll ask NPR to do the same.
George... You left out one
George...
You left out one of the larger offenders, NPR, which, as some poster pointed out to me, sucks off the govt. TEAT.
This is particularly aggravating to me since MY tax dollars go to foster a left leaning media without my concurrence. I might also add where in the Constitution does the Federal Govt. have the authority to be subsidizing network broadcasters when I have a 100+ to choose from, but that would be logical to the libs, so I won't ask that question.
Twas_was, your post
Twas_was, your post demonstrates the problem. You state, "they (Fox) look like a conservative news service when, in fact, they are in the middle." I don't think that's a "fact" at all but an opinion. Just my opinion.
Twas_was writes: "I am not a journalist, but in life when I discuss "facts" with people, I try to be objective and think about wording and how it would appear from both sides. If they can't objectively report the "news", then maybe they should be a commentator. I just think in today's world they really don't care about objectivity. MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, etal. are left-leaning to far-left. And when people who gravitate towards those news services look at Fox, they look like a conservative news service, when in fact, they are in the middle."
Several days ago after a
Several days ago after a particularly spirited harangue he announced with great flair (what a drama queen) that he would never darken our doorway again. As you see, though, he's been reading and watching and just couldn't hold back. I've no doubt that he'll find blogs at the WSJ(or wherever) boring with no one to preach to but the chior.
I'll continue to give him a good taunting knowing that he's out there.
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
twas_was wrote:MSNBC, NBC,
I think it more accurate to say that they're fairly centrist, with some left-leaning and some right-leaning commentators (Olbermann and Glen Beck being examples of each), and, above all, they've elevated the trivial to news. I mean, I'm sorry to hear about the whole Caylee Anthony thing, but jesus, just how long is Nancy Grace going to pound it into the sand with her constant coverage?
If you're making a blanket condemnation of all those networks as left-leaning, then I think that says more about your own lack of objectivity than anything.
Problem with the "ideal" of
Problem with the "ideal" of journalism being objective, particularly as pertains to television media, is that the ideal collides with the reality that media is big business. Television news in particular has to compete with entertainment media, so they're going to pitch their product to an audience that buys it.
The other issue is the 24 hour news cycle -- the trivial is blown all out of proportion by the competing news networks.
I believe they teach in
I believe they teach in journalism school the meaning of objectivity. I am not a journalist, but in life when I discuss "facts" with people, I try to be objective and think about wording and how it would appear from both sides. If they can't objectively report the "news", then maybe they should be a commentator. I just think in today's world they really don't care about objectivity. MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, etal. are left-leaning to far-left. And when people who gravitate towards those news services look at Fox, they look like a conservative news service, when in fact, they are in the middle. It just looks like they are conservative because of the viewer's vantage point. To a conservative, they look like they are reporting from the middle.
It's a free market, so they
It's a free market, so they say. If some who identify as conservative don't like the KC Star, why don't they start a local newspaper? Like him or hate him, Murdoch is spending his money and taking the risks on the WSJ. Fox is as fair and balanced as the viewer beholds. Liberals are doing their own fair and balanced act with MSNBC and Air America. Be brave and be positive about your own views. The "news" is always and inevitably slanted by the reporter's perspective (IMO).
Radical a question for you
Radical a question for you old friend. What did Grinch say s/he was doing, quitting this blog or what???
Grinch, I knew you'd be
Grinch, I knew you'd be drawn out. Your head would explode if you tried to hold it in. Let me say though, I I think the local &state elections are the basis for building grass roots support and a national organization, a lesson taken from the conservative movement. Remember to old saw, all politics is local? Give me school boards, city councils and mayors and I'll get the state house, then the congressmen and senators... you get the picture. So the Star endorsements on the local level are not without influence.
You're getting the "content neutral" WSJ? Rupert Murdock's WSJ? The WSJ where Rupert consults daily with the managing editor? It's a good rag but... DUH?? If you want balance you should get the NY Times too. You can afford it. Then you can go back & forth cutting & pasting and arguing with yourself since you've decided not to engage with us anymore. bahk, bahk, bahk, CHICKEN! Ronald Reagan would be ashamed of you, quitter. Posting on the WSJ, or FOX blogs won't diseminate your political genius.
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
Grinch, I knew you'd be
Grinch, I knew you'd be drawn out. Your head would explode if you tried to hold it in. Let me say though, I I think the local &state elections are the basis for building grass roots support and a national organization, a lesson taken from the conservative movement. Remember to old saw, all politics is local? Give me school boards, city councils and mayors and I'll get the state house, then the congressmen and senators... you get the picture. So the Star endorsements on the local level are not without influence.
You're getting the "content neutral" WSJ? Rupert Murdock's WSJ? The WSJ where Rupert consults daily with the managing editor? It's a good rag but... DUH?? If you want balance you should get the NY Times too. You can afford it. Then you can go back & forth cutting & pasting and arguing with yourself since you've decided not to engage with us anymore. bahk, bahk, bahk, CHICKEN! Ronald Reagan would be ashamed of you, quitter. Posting on the WSJ, or FOX blogs won't diseminate your political genius.
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
GrinchForPrez wrote:I
Ha! We knew he was bloviating!
Grinch, did I miss you were
Grinch, did I miss you were leaving this blog? Are you going to another one? If so, may I ask where??
I know it gets tiresome, but the fight to educate the libs has to continue. Besides, it's interesting to see the twist applied to problems.
I apologize for posting. I
I apologize for posting. I have to answer a poster's disingenous post that claimed parity in the Star's recommendation of Republicans and Democrats, over national and local elections.
The local elections are irrelevant, and the poster knows that - the national elections are what count. Out of the 13 races contested in national and KS/MO State-level elections (senator, representative, governor, etc), 12 out of 13 offices had the Star's imprimatur on the Democrat candidates. Those offices have by far the greatest impact on politics - if the poster claims that local officials have the same weight, that poster is a moron.
I personally love reading the paper in the morning over coffee, only now it's the Wall Street Journal, delivered every day but Sunday on my driveway, which is refreshingly clear of the overt liberal bias of the KC Red Star.
Unlike other kind posters, I could not care less about the future of the Star, since they could not care less about mine. Another wise poster mentioned that 90% of the staff seems to post liberal opinions when at least 50% of their readers are conservative - and guess what? They deserve to have 50% less readers.
Over and out permanently ...
barb, you missed a big and
barb, you missed a big and glaring reason...the paper has become so left-slanted that people don't appreciate the biased read. If you became more conservative in your writing, i bet you'd have more readership. of course it will never happen. it would be like asking a zebra to change its stripes.
Twas you're on point but I
Twas you're on point but I notice even more the sin of omission. Every word in a story might be exactly factual but it's what's not mentioned or the stories never covered that truly show the bias of a media outlet. e.g. One might cover the opening of new schools in Iraq and the other car bombings. Neither tell the whole story. I've seen the same critisism of the Star in this very thread. Can one paper be all things to all readers? This forum adds balance. Unless you call me a REALLY bad name you're posted verbatim and your counterpoint is made for hundreds, even thousands to read. Ain't that something? Do you feel a sense of awsome responsibility? Yeah, me neither but we have our say and everybody gets to participate, even the Grinch. If the Star was really all that biased they'd have an editor blocking your posts (but of course, not mine 'cause I'm a lib).
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
twas_was wrote:Bill O'Reilly
I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell ya.
RadMod - I grew up watching
RadMod - I grew up watching Walter Cronkite and Huntley/Brinkley. At the time, everyone assumed their news was "news", ie. "fact". Now I have to wonder how much that was going on in the country during that time got reported as "fact", when it was in-fact slanted. Example, the JFK/Mayor Daley voter rigging in Chicago. Did Barry Goldwater get a fair shake? The Vietnam war under Johnson, but when Nixon came in, it became his war - and whether Johnson & Nixon got the same shake. The thing that bothers me is that the print media and broadcast media has been left-leaning for many years - and how many years did we just assume they were reporting "news", when in fact maybe they weren't.
I was just pondering
I was just pondering Nukman's last comment "The Newspaper used to tell just that, the news" and it occured to me that maybe it's not the Star, maybe we were all younger and just didn't know any better. As we've grown older we notice the subtle omissions/inclusions in coverage of a story or stories that are omitted altogether in favor of others. As I've read through these comments I see that awareness on the right and left. Wasn't there a time when most big cities had left and right leaning "rags" for different constituencies i.e. the NY Times & Wall Street Journal? I'm certainly left of center but I don't want them to do away with McClanahan. I read David Brooks and other conservative writers in the Star. Have some of us become so narrow minded that we ONLY want to hear one side? Is that what this is about? I like the Pro/Con features on the editorial page. Maybe there should be more but I thought the conservatives were against the fairness doctrine in broadcast media... but not print media?
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
O'Reilly had the only real
O'Reilly had the only real interview with Obama that didn't throw him beach balls. He was fair and respectful. I learned more about Obama in that interview than I learned from anything/everything else combined. His earlier interview with McCain was pretty much the same, although is was long before the heat of the battle. He interview George Bush in the White House last year and asked questions that I wanted asked. He pushed for direct answers, but was respectful doing so. He may be a commentator, but when it comes to interviewing presidents or presidential hopefuls, I felt like he left his politics (whatever they are) at the door. I did not like Sean Hannity's interviews of Palin. He did not ask the questions like an objective person. I also didn't like the Palin interview by Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric for the same reasons. So, like or dislike Bill O'Reilly, but he got his interviews right.
Bill O'Reilly an
Bill O'Reilly an independent? Independent of what? Just how far right off the conservative scale does one have to be to consider O'Reilly independent? Besides, he's not a news man he's an entertainer/commentator. He and others of this genre (right & left) are paid to promote a particular point of view or philospphy and they're good at it. It's their job to fire you up. As long as we all understand what they're feeding us it's OK but when we make start thinking this is news we've deluded ourselves. At least the Daily Show says it's fake news.
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
The Newspaper used to tell
The Newspaper used to tell just that, the news.
I can't remember the last time I read a newspaper article that didn't require that I wade through the "reporter's" opinions and biases before I could glean the facts of the story, if they were included at all.
You want to know why the existing print media are dying? They quit doing their job.
Barb - I appreciated your
Barb -
I appreciated your editorial this morning. It is an issue I have been very concerned about for several months. The demise of the print media would be a horrendous disaster to this country. I look forward each morning to being able to peruse the Star at length. Do I agree with everything? - - No. But it is thought provoking and provides needed information for being an informed citizen.
I do use the internet and peruse various sites, including KansasCity.com, but find none of them as easy to read as the printed page. The other thing that really concerns me about the internet is the mass of misinformation out there. Everytime I read something, I look for attribution to see whether I should really consider it as valid information.
Keep the printed media coming. I will be around for awhile to continue to read it. Thanks again for your thoughts.
Bill O'Reilly is an
Bill O'Reilly is an Independent. Oh, I forgot, if someone isn't a far-left loon, they must be a dreaded conservative. As a conservative, I see O'Reilly as someone in the middle - meaning I agree with him about half the time. For libs - it's all or nothing.
kcgrh, do your homework. Air
kcgrh, do your homework.
Air America is still on the air. Google it. You can listen LIVE. LOL
And one of the Air America hosts now has her own TV show.
Air America is alive and well.
But I hear Bill O'Reilly is canceling his radio show.
Aw c'mon KC don't be harsh.
Aw c'mon KC don't be harsh. There's still plenty to read that's neutral. Features, sports, seasonal articles, etc. The basic world, and national ticker news is neutral M/L, the funnies? Dear Abby & Miss Manners? The ads deals & coupons can pay for the cost of the paper. When you're done reading it you can recycle it OR take it to the outhouse and do a little editorializng yourself! Rip off a page of Yael's comments and....you know. Wouldn't THAT be satisfying on multiple levels? Renew your subscription.
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
Have you been reading the
Have you been reading the Opinion section lately. Lee Judge is back - and he is as vile as ever. With regard to the 50% - look at the presidential voting map in the last election. Look at the counties surrounding the KC area (including Kansas). Then you have to average each county against the total number of counties. Go to http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#mapPKS and add up the Obama percentage of seven-county metro area and then divide by 7. I get 50.71% Obama.
You're right apop... It is
You're right apop...
It is not 50% because we conservatives have decided to vote with our pocketbook. You libs can have it. Let's see if you are as successful in keeping it afloat as you were with the wonderfully balanced Airless America... Oh, that's right, they're bankrupt.
As I thought, the 50/50 was
As I thought, the 50/50 was all BS since you can point to no definitive article...
Keep up the good work libs....
kcgrh wrote: All I remember
Evidence of your selective memory.
Simple search, kcgrh. Yes,
Simple search, kcgrh.
Yes, about half of The Star's endorsements were Dems and half were GOP. I would imagine the little search box at the top of the page would assist you in locating the list of endorsed candidates.
Hmm, care to back that up?
Hmm, care to back that up?
50% of The Star's readers are cons?
Or did you just pull that statistic out of your ever enlarging @$$?
Now for the clueless who still believe The Star has a liberal agenda, why did they fire Lee Judge and take Diuguid's column away? Until McConservative's column is gone too, I will claim a conservative bias by this newspaper.
Besides, I actually know reporters who work (actually used to work) at The Star. It ain't no liberal rag. Dream on, ye clueless ones.
Rebel Mamma, do you have an
Rebel Mamma, do you have an article which details the star's political endorsements? All I remember seeing was yes on this lib, yes on this lib etc.
I find it hard to believe 50% of their endorsements went to the dreaded R's, but will take your URL pointing me to the truth as well, truth.
TIA
I have great affection for
I have great affection for newspapers and hope they will somehow survive. I delivered the Cleveland Plain Dealer when I was a kid, as did my three brothers before me. I got up every morning, covered my route without fail, and never thought about snow, sleet, rain, or heat. I would then come home, eat breakfast, and walk to school. Once a month, I collected from each customer and, fortunately, there were no deadbeats on my route. This was a great opportunity for youngsters to earn pocket money and learn a valuable lesson about life: "There ain't no free lunch".
I look forward to reading the Star every morning. It offers a variety of information, from a variety of sources, that are not available anywhere else. Nobody is compelled to read everything that everybody writes. I read those articles which interest me and ignore others. It is portable, so I can carry it anywhere I choose. I can mark items that I want my wife to read and clip out those which I want to save. I can write "letters to the editor", where they are permanently stored, and share my frustrations with other readers. I can go to the library and read newspapers from the past, in conducting research.
I hope that we don't lose this valuable resource. America would be diminshed without newspapers.
It's so interesting that we
It's so interesting that we hear comment claiming polar opposites regarding reporting bias...I believe that means an effort is made to provide balance but folks on the extremes hone in on the offending words and are thus ticked off at least half the time. It says more about the reader than the rag. Did you notice that the Star's recommendations for national and local elections actually were split just over 50/50, with the odd number pushing it to one more Republican than Democrat? I thought not, though am not a bit surprised.
Once again, radicalizedmoderate sums up my thoughts beautifully; thanks for the smile this morning!
Interface, it's the
Interface, it's the Christmas season, so I will try to be gentle with your feelings.
If you don't think the star has a liberal agenda, you have neither viewed the former Judge's cartoons nor the rash of liberal columnists the star offers. I especially got upset at the one from Minnesota and of course Ms. I hate Bush Lokeman.
At least my money isn't supporting this institution anymore!!!!
Have a Merry Christmas Interface...
Interface - it must be one
Interface - it must be one of those things where "you had to be there". I'll put it to you another way - if YOU are happy with the Star's 'agenda', then that might be a clue.
twas_was wrote:With such
The only stupidity is the constant yammering of folks like Grinch who keep going on about some imaginary "liberal agenda" in this newspaper. Get real.
Words printed deliver the
Words printed deliver the slant of the author. Even the slightest adjective or adverb seasons the reporting.
I have yet to see any media outlet whether tv, radio, paper or net site that isn't slanted.
Reporting facts must be a boring job, so insert (creative writing) masterfully woven to create a visual picture and voila- you have slant.
But it would help if the slant was balanced.
"You will learn far more about yourself, when you share your opinions with people, than people will learn about you- as long as you have an open mind."
Yea, Star, you don't report
Yea, Star, you don't report enough liberal agenda - what a laugh! Apop & Lezzle would have had ulcers if they were on the conservative side of the aisle. I agree that electronic media is a part of print media's financial problem, but I want to ask a very simple question: How can a commercial business make it very long when they insult at least 50% of their market? That's right, at least 50% of the Star's market is conservative, yet they treat them like they don't matter. When 9 out of 10 journalists are liberal, yet 50% of the public are conservative, it doesn't make for a very good market for your product. And why is McClanahan the only conservative opinion columnist? With such stupidity, you really deserve to fail.
Free Press ..........
Free Press ..........
it costs money for reporters to keep up with the antics of Mayor Mark Funkhouser ---> TKC gives a realistic first class journalistic report on the Funk. Much better than what we have received from Yael T Abouhalkah... if the Star doesn't want to provide the reporting for free, let it charge what it can. I'll stick with Tony...
A Messed Up Paper ...
A Messed Up Paper ...
The Star can't even get the title/subject line of this blog to work. So who are you kidding? The newspapers have perished mostly by their own hand.
And as to the diminishing revenues (The problem, boiled down, is that readers and advertisers are moving from newsprint to the Internet, but Internet advertisements pay only a fraction of print ads) I ask you Barb Shelly, how much did you earn being a reporter thirty years ago and how much do you earn now? If the revenues diminish, then the salaries of the staff are going to need to diminish as well. Have you had your pay cut? Has Yael T Abouhlakah had his pay cut?
In a regular, non-government business when the revenues go down, people need to make do with less... a harsh but realistic fact.
Apop, I agree. Why weren't
Apop, I agree. Why weren't they covering the local protest? Not enough staff? It seems to me that if the "news" hasn't already been "reported" on a web site, it won't make it into print in our paper. Most of us already know the "news" long before we see it in the paper. We used to think a newspaper would give us in-depth reporting not possible in a 2-minute segment on the nightly news. Ha. How old-fashioned is that notion? What I would like to read each day are thoroughly researched local stories, even if they seem mundane and repetitive to the reporter, these events are important to those who live and work in this community. I would like to read fair and balanced coverage of state, national and international news. I don't want to read about birthdays of pop celebrities, but if someone of stature dies, please give me a report that is fresh and cuts to the core of our community's loss. Everyone needs an editor, and the Star's standards are high for quality production, but who on Earth is making the decisions for content and hiring columnists these days? It seems that most of the "news" articles covering local issues have a connection to an advertiser. Health care features are predominantly about you-know-who hospital. The popular cliques get repeated coverage and everyone else is put on hold. Literally. Try telling anyone about a possible news story. Kansas guy publishes best selling book? Not a bite. Public fights MMA ban in small Kansas town. Not a nibble. Because these stories were NOT already reported by someone else? It seems that the only big investigative splashy stories originating from Star reporters are published for self-serving contest entries. I think it would be worth resubscribing if our subscriptions supported a watch-dog, with a spiked collar and fangs, in Topeka and in Johnson County, Wyandotte County, and most certainly in Jackson County. The petty stuff (e.g., Funk and Gloria) would have been fluff a few years ago. Ignore the potatoes and give us meat to chew on. I'm tired of pretentious commentary. That is not NEWS. If the Star is a newspaper, than that's all I want from them. News. I don't want to be given two columnists because one is liberal and one is conservative. I would prefer one columnist who is one hell of a writer. I would find that product well worth the time to read and the cost to buy.
I'm a liberal and this
I'm a liberal and this newspaper lost me when you along with the rest of our "media" allowed Bush to lead us to war while you cheerleaded instead of reported.
Then you refused to even report on the Downing Street Memo. If you all had done your job, a million Iraqis and 4200 US soldiers would not be dead, Bush wouldn't have finished his term and he and his fellow war criminals would be on trial or behind bars.
If newspapers had behaved like this when Nixon was in office, he would never have resigned.
More recently, 500 showed up on The Plaza on a cold day to protest against Prop 8 passage in California and The Star didn't even bother to cover it.
I never thought I would see the day when The Pitch did a better job of covering local news than The Star.
Clean up your house and start doing your jobs as "reporters". Then your profit margin MIGHT improve.
Readers, no matter what your number one issue is, media reform needs to be #2.
Journalism was at one time a
Journalism was at one time a respected, almost revered, profession because we all thought journalists were tough, fair, smart, educated, ethical, and did I say smart. I will agree with the earlier post regarding the pedantic quality and lame substance of the commentary and reporting. Why didn't the Star investigate the source of the human specimens in the Bodies Revealed exhibit? Publishing a what amounted to a retraction of support the week the show ended was pitiful. Want more examples? I've got more. Yael, you, McClanahan (he's the most lucid of your bunch) are now reduced to blogging about sports and spewing nonsense for the sake of reaction in the form of hits to garner advertising support. I rarely participate because a few rotten blow-hards have consistently spoiled the barrel. As to the remedy? I think smaller, tighter, crisper, better quality, more focused investigative journalists covering local news (we get all the repetitive coverage of the crisis du jour we can stomach from cable). Enough with the ertwhile entertainment. We can get that from the Internet OMG and cooking channels. I, too, savor a sip of coffee with my news and will one day, with some quaint nostalgia, miss wiping the inky fingerprint smudges from the bathroom door.
Ms. Shelly, I used to think
Ms. Shelly,
I used to think that the value of having a local paper was very high. During the past presidential election cycle I became so disappointed in the lack of fair and equal coverage that I cancelled my subscription to the star.
Since then, I haven't noticed the world coming to an end, so, I have concluded that the value of a local paper is far overrated.
I don't personally wish you ill, but your incessant lib agenda should not be paid for my people like me, and I will not.
If I'm lucky heaven is a
If I'm lucky heaven is a warm summer morning on my front porch with a mug of coffee and the morning paper. I'll sit with my feet up and listen to the city wake, catch the scent of honeysuckle on the breeze mixed with the smell of newsprint and coffee. I smile just thinking about it.
If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the a$$#@les are?
I myself find online
I myself find online blogging is at it's all time HIGH. You can go to darn near any website and be able to freely express yourself, or even start a forum or blog of your own and advertise it.
This growing popularity with hashing out and talking about news, trends and events grows because ANYONE can participate and facilitate it. We don't HAVE to have a mainstream media outlet(it helps) but then again, you have cnn, local tv outlets, yahoo and all these other places where it doesn't "cost" to read or share opinion.
I rather like the idea of being able to put my ideals out there and see what comes of it.
It's sad the paper isn't doing so well, but just like the postage stamp and snail mail- e-media is taking over and you may be right, by the end of 2009, there may be many cities without a printed paper.
Guess they better hop on the e wagon and start marketing now before they fade away.
"You will learn far more about yourself, when you share your opinions with people, than people will learn about you- as long as you have an open mind."
Boo hoo, Barb
Boo hoo, Barb Shelly.
Publish something worth reading, and we might read it. Not everyone thinks Mark Funkhouser has been up to "antics".
The Star has done its damndest to smear American car makers, who, by the way, are two big employers in town.
Jenee Osterheidt(?)'s column belongs in a high school newspaper.
Rhonda Criss-Lokeman has written the same column for eight years. (That dummy Bush is bad.). Same with Diguid (White people are bad.)
It used to take me two hours to read the Sunday paper. Now it takes 30 minutes tops, and that includes the funnies.
Wow are you delusional you
Wow are you delusional you think the economy is why the dead tree media and CBS, NBC, etc are failing? really? let me buy you a clue...you are failing because the public does not trust you all to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth without your consistant liberal ideology. From elections to global warming to the war in Iraq you all cannot just tell the NEWS you must inject yourselves and your personal opinions to the NEWS.
We don't want that from our news we want the NEWS period. I will be one of those who personally will be thrilled when you all are but a footnote in history and my satisfaction will be in knowing you did it to yourself!