News-Record.com

It WAS good TV. Eight years to get OBL as opposed to eight months makes the question Wallace asked Clinton legitimate. And I'm not so certain Slick Willie's performance was as spinfulishsly "calculated" as it was evidence Wallace hit a nerve . . . because people are challenging/questioning the all-hallowed "legacy" now.

I get Human Events Online (because I took a book offer). Ann Coulter's take (if you agree with her or not) is LOL funny. I can't make it link.

The last time Clinton wagged his finger at us, he was lying about wagging something else.

Every time Clinton does something stupid he adds to his legacy.
He's been out of office 6 years, isn't it time he just shut up??

The last time Clinton got this red-faced someone ended up with a stained dress...

Oh, and the finger wag seems very, very familiar... sadly...

and still, no one addresses his points.

Whose points are we talking about, Sean? Clinton's? I think Ann Coulter did a fairly decent (and hilarious) job of that in the "Human Events" Op-Ed I cited (but could not link . . . I tried . . . it did not work). It had a great title, "I Did Not Have Sex With That Nomad, Osama Bin Ladin". Not all of us worship at the "man from Hope's" altar.

I also agreed with John that Clinton's show - whether you believe it was calculated (I don't) or a meltdown because someone is just a little too touchy on the subject of what he did not do in office was "good TV".

As for JR's points, I'm a "source" (albeit a nobody and clearly not in a position of power) . . . and I have "conniptions"/give JR grief on a fairly regular basis on the way he has NOT covered my story. Neither the story (which he completely mis-represented in a recent thread) nor our "disagreement" (over the meaning and purpose of "local" journalism) are "newsworthy".

As for people leaving and coming back, I took a break for a while . . . discouraged by the mean-spritedness and arrogant hypocrisy I have seen demonstrated on these very blogs. The cameras, in a manner of speaking, ARE rolling - and they're not presenting a very pretty picture. The more I read, the madder I get. While I was "gone", I found my voice (on my own blog). And I am back "visiting" others.

I've begun to look at posting on these blogs (JR's and Lex') as an experiment.

As much as I want the overall goal to succeed, I continue to find it all very pointless...

The "dialogue" that takes place is always one-sided and as if Lex and JR are talking past nearly every poster here.

The opposite are the folks who whole-heartedly agree with Lex/JR. They aren't the people that the newspaper needs to reach.

What I can't figure out is why nothing is really changing with the tone (bias being the most obvious) in all of these blogs and the newspaper.

Readers are rejecting the product. Newspaper readership is essentially FALLING (technically growing slightly, but not nearly at the rate of population growth.)

Everyone blames the Internet... but why is newspaper readership STILL essentially falling even on weekends when no one is at work to surf news -- and are in theory preoccupied AWAY from a computer with seemingly free time to read the PAPER product?

The reason is no longer bad printing quality, poor delivery schedule or lack of color, etc. Even the price is cheap with constant specials -- in fact I'd like to know how many people offered the first 13 weeks free (or something like that) still just say "NO"? EVEN when that special allows them to stop at any point and owe nothing.

It comes down the content. People simply are rejecting the content of the product.

Sure, JR and everyone will argue that the reach of the website is making up for this, but I really doubt that. The numbers growing online don't begin to make up for those effectively lost in print.

I see some very positive changes taking place in SOME areas, but they need to not just be tucked-away sections employing entry level folks. How about making half the front page a zoned local product? Radical.

How about changing the tone of the newspaper from "we're here to tell you what's right for you" to "we want to help you live your life"

Overall, the paper's content -- in print and online -- still preaches to me as if it knows better.

I've had people tell me for nearly 40 years they know what's right for me. I'm tired of it -- especially when I see through the bias with the help of the Internet.

It's pointless until the larger issues are addressed. And, that will be hard because a whole generation (since Watergate) of reporters is trained to do the "gotcha" story or tell me what they think I need to know.

What's funny about this is that no one will respond to my post. If they do it will be "cite specifics" or that "newsrooms don't work that way."

Well, OK. Keep thinking that. Keep talking past me. That will work.

Good points, Jim.
I was BANNED from The Lex Files yesterday because Lex continues to make false and misleading statements about President Bush and the government and I challenge him on these lies when he prints them. It's easier for him to ban me than it is to defend his indefensible position.
Censorship is alive and well in the N&R blogs. If you don't agree with their message, they treat you as a child that needs to be educated, instead of someone with an opinion or position that has as much value as theirs.

Jaycee, you are one of the few people, when you blog I make a point of reading. I would not waste one second worrying over being banned by Lex. You have blogs that contain facts, and I have not caught you any spin. I hear a man say today he did not believe one damn word that was printed in a newspaper. That is sad the news papers, have come to that point. Could it be that Lex, does not want facts to get in the way of his version of the truth.