From IMDB news:
Shares of Blockbuster fell nearly 10 percent Friday to a 52-week low of $4.60 amid reports that customers are shying away from traditional DVD rentals and are gravitating to online services like NetFlix or are preferring to buy DVDs at retail chains like Wal-Mart and Best Buy, which sometimes offer DVDs for sale at "loss-leader" prices. Blockbuster management has also been criticized by some investors for its policy of effectively doing away with late charges. In an interview with today's (Monday) Wall Street Journal, Blockbuster chief John Antioco conceded that the overall "rental industry is in the tank." He added, I am not trying to portray that everything is hunky-dory with the industry. It's not." Antioco told the newspaper. He primarily attributed the company's financial condition to the public's lack of interest in current movie fare. Shares in Blockbuster continued to fall today and were trading at $4.42 at midday.
and:
CBS's John Roberts, regarded as the most likely candidate to succeed Dan Rather as anchor of the CBS Evening News, told Saturday's Los Angeles Times that the disparity between what reporters saw and what officials said was "stunning." He added that in the future, "I think we'll probably be quicker to ask questions. ... I think we'll be a little bit more skeptical of pronouncements that come from the administration and other levels of government."
About the second -- am
I
to believe that reporters swallowed government pronouncements without doubting them much?
Adam's gay.
Actually he's been dating a woman named Suzie who works for their manager for quite a while. But you never know.
I guess I'm guessing then too. Oh well, it's all rumor unless you catch 'em in the stalls or have personal knowledge.
the disparity between what reporters saw and what officials said was "stunning."
The obvious rejoinder is that the disparity between what reporters
see
and what they
report
is stunning. They hold back to preserve access. With the access that they've been given-- lies-- it is incredible that they still try to preserve it.
With the access that they've been given-- lies-- it beggars belief that they would still try to preserve it.
It feels weird that they're shifting the disbelief buck. I'm supposed to believe they're so stupid and non-investigative that they took pronouncements as the gospel word, and merely relayed it to me? And that they're going to proclaim the inaccuracies as having a single source, that they're being lied to, just like we are?
I dunno. I guess if there were people who believed everything the government says, there are people who believe that all major news sources give 100% of the untarnished truth.
Where are those people? I want to yell at them.
Were you doing them any good, though?
Well, talking up and linking articles. I wouldn't subscribe, but other people might. Really, though, it's hard to be the paper of record if large numbers of people can't/won't read you.
am I to believe that reporters swallowed government pronouncements without doubting them much?
How long did the gay porn star ask softball questions in the White House press room before somebody cried foul? Four years. Now, it's downright likely that everybody knew the gay porn star was a walking bamboozle, but didn't feel like they had the audience mandate to pursue it. Still and all, that's the whole point of muckraking journalism -- your audience doesn't know how badly they're being bamboozled, and it's your job to unboozle them.
The Times did a retrospective, some months after we invaded Iraq, and admitted in print that they'd swallowed the republican party line like a big, stupid flounder. They swore to be more skeptical, but it only shows up on alternate Thursdays.
Really, though, it's hard to be the paper of record if large numbers of people can't/won't read you.
Weren't they the paper of record before putting stuff on the web?
I can't argue the point too hard, because I'm not sure what the paper-of-record criteria are, but I'd assumed that the online news market was primarily for presence, and was a loss leader. If NYT thinks they're still a gorilla, why try and bleed less green?
that's the whole point of muckraking journalism -- your audience doesn't know how badly they're being bamboozled, and it's your job to unboozle them.
I thought the point of muckraking journalism was to scandalise and tittilate, and truth transmission was an occasional side effect.
Were you doing them any good, though?
Yeah, that's my attitude. I mean, I'm gonna miss the free access to articles, and no doubt I'm going to bitch about it, but realistically, giving stuff away for free when what you want is for people to pay... well, it can't go on forever.
About the second -- am I to believe that reporters swallowed government pronouncements without doubting them much?
And do you really believe they are going to suddenly become more circumspect about the information coming from the WH? Me doubts it.
I suspect this means
The Boston Globe
is next, because the NYT owns it. Damn.
