The cost of the Times decision
Ed Cone correctly points out that the Rhino got something wrong about us. Again. This time on The New York Times decision. We are shocked! Shocked!
At least one California writer doesn't think this is totally half baked or a sign that we are dumbing down. Tim Porter begins his post about it this way: Change comes with a price. The more radical the shift, the higher the cost. For newspapers, the tariff to a different future must be the sacrifice of sacred cows, damage to some newsroom egos and even the loss of some of today's readers in the hopes of securing more of tomorrow's.
Of course, we are betting that we'll get more of tomorrow's than we might lose of today's.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
No matter how you explain the decision to stop access to the NYT News Service in the N&R it remains a bad decision for the people of Greensboro.
Posted on June 2, 2005 7:02 PM
John,
Looked at objectively the decision to drop the Times is no worse (or better) than the decision to carry it in the first place.
Looked at subjectively, which of course is how we all look at everything, the decision is actually quite good (my comment, my subjectivity). The Times has been over rated for far too long. It's been a festering piece of mediocrity for years, but no one wants to admit it.
Personally I'd like more inside dirt on the Greensboro City Council...especially since I don't have to live with them.
Posted on June 2, 2005 8:31 PM
"...festering piece of mediocrity." What a great line. Maybe the N&R should have dropped the NY Times News Service when it was discovered that Jayson Blair made up news stories out of whole cloth. The NY Times is not the be-all and end-all of journalism. At times it doesn't even come close. Stick to your guns and bring us something new and fresh.
Posted on June 4, 2005 8:47 PM
Jon, Not all of us who buy or subscribe to the N&R live in Guilford county. We do not like to be force fed only news about Guilford County when we are looking to the N&R to be more sophisticated about national and world news. I expect local coverage in our little local paper that comes out once a week but the N&R is hardly a small town paper. So why act like one?
Posted on June 5, 2005 8:10 AM
Yvonne, we give you both. We're emphasizing local news, but there is plenty of national and world news in the paper. Our Times decision doesn't indicate a lessening of the amount, as my column this morning -- another post on this blog -- explains.
Posted on June 5, 2005 8:30 AM
The NYT decision is a done deal and I understand why you made it, but as one of the political ax-grinders you referred to, I would like to clarify a remark you made in the interview with Tim Porter.
In speaking of the discussion on the Downing Street Memo you said:
That's just plain wrong. I had to search out that news from the foreign press because it was virtually ignored by the US media. My gripe isn't that you didn't spin the story to sway people to my point of view, it's that you didn't give it to them at all, so they could make up their own minds. And yes, I think a story that offers proof that our president lied to send us to war deserves significant coverage. That above all, is the job of the press - to inform the public.Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't understand why Newsweek slipping up on a source makes the front page but this story didn't.
Posted on June 6, 2005 11:33 PM
Bring back the NYTimes News Service!!!!! I can't bear opening the editorial pages to see only the most conservative (and that's a gracious judgment)opinion writers interpreting the world's news and conditions. And - Greensboro deserves real in-depth reporting on international/national news - not just a brief 'item'. Readers deserve a newspaper that helps convey the BIG context for their lives. To say that the N&R finds the service too expensive is incredible.
Posted on June 7, 2005 5:47 PM