• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

Layoffs at the OWH?

Cronkite is the example used when talking about how video media changed history. Print media has been attacking Presidents since our country's founding. Teddy Roosevelt says hi. Watergate is a print media example of when day-2-day reporters used investigative journalism to dig beyond the story and get to the truth, which led to getting a president removed from office and two reporters becoming rich celebrities. Print, then pajama media have been chasing that standard since. It used to be the sensationalism was in the headline and editorial page but the stories through the paper was fact based. Now sensationalism is cover to cover.
Anybody hear ever read The Lyndon Johnson Years by Robert Caro? I have no love for Nixon, but I think that he was right in his whining about how the press let Johnson off the hook for doing the same (or worse). While it was investigative journalism that brought down Nixon, I can't help but wonder why it didn't bring down LBJ? I think that the same biases still come into play when trying to explain it. The clearest example of a bias that affects how you shape a story is the Robert Caro project, itself, which was nearly a half-century of top-level research into making the multi-part biography. To paraphrase his own words, he started out wanting to write a biography of LBJ because from the outside--Caro was an NYC reporter at the time of the LBJ presidency--he thought that LBJ was a sterling example of how the use of presidential power in noble hands could achieve great things. A couple decades and a couple of books later, umm ... not so much.
 

Red October

Junior Varsity
5 Year Member
Cronkite is the example used when talking about how video media changed history. Print media has been attacking Presidents since our country's founding. Teddy Roosevelt says hi. Watergate is a print media example of when day-2-day reporters used investigative journalism to dig beyond the story and get to the truth, which led to getting a president removed from office and two reporters becoming rich celebrities. Print, then pajama media have been chasing that standard since. It used to be the sensationalism was in the headline and editorial page but the stories through the paper was fact based. Now sensationalism is cover to cover.
Richard Nixon was railroaded by the press, the media and the DNC. Not saying he was innocent but he was never gulty of criminal activity just the coverup. The press has been lobbing softballs at democrat candidate since JFK was elected and that is a fact. What you are saying is the end justifies the means to which it was achieved and nothing could be further from the truth.
 

Husker Country Doc

All American
15 Year Member
Richard Nixon was railroaded by the press, the media and the DNC. Not saying he was innocent but he was never gulty of criminal activity just the coverup. The press has been lobbing softballs at democrat candidate since JFK was elected and that is a fact. What you are saying is the end justifies the means to which it was achieved and nothing could be further from the truth.
I did my Junior term paper on Watergate (to better understand it), and I would agree.

G. Gordon Liddy was the nefarious one, hatching the plot to spy on dems. Nixon never became involved until the cover-up, which was worse than the crime.

The media will give a pass to any democratic candidate for ANYTHING. They will make mountains out of molehills for Republicans.
 
Richard Nixon was railroaded by the press, the media and the DNC. Not saying he was innocent but he was never gulty of criminal activity just the coverup. The press has been lobbing softballs at democrat candidate since JFK was elected and that is a fact. What you are saying is the end justifies the means to which it was achieved and nothing could be further from the truth.
I'm not sure where I said the end justifies the means and since I don't believe that it certainly would not have been my intent to convey that message. I was identifying/interpreting how newspaper media slid away from journalism and into sensationalism.
 
Anybody hear ever read The Lyndon Johnson Years by Robert Caro? I have no love for Nixon, but I think that he was right in his whining about how the press let Johnson off the hook for doing the same (or worse). While it was investigative journalism that brought down Nixon, I can't help but wonder why it didn't bring down LBJ? I think that the same biases still come into play when trying to explain it. The clearest example of a bias that affects how you shape a story is the Robert Caro project, itself, which was nearly a half-century of top-level research into making the multi-part biography. To paraphrase his own words, he started out wanting to write a biography of LBJ because from the outside--Caro was an NYC reporter at the time of the LBJ presidency--he thought that LBJ was a sterling example of how the use of presidential power in noble hands could achieve great things. A couple decades and a couple of books later, umm ... not so much.
I haven't read much about Lyndon Johnson other than his role in Vietnam. The reputation of Democratic presidents in my lifetime have suffered with time. The reputation of Republican presidents have improved. The modern phenomena of anti-Republican only "journalism" may be best summed up by the butt-fuzz reporter standing along the highway oogling all the people that came out to see Reagan's body pass. As he was killing air time he noted that maybe we, as reporters, got it all wrong about Reagan.
 

II HUSKERS II

Red Shirt
10 Year Member
Whatever is happening there at the the OWH, one thing is for sure - they are desperate right now. I've been getting all kinds of phone calls from them begging me to come back.

I block their number - BOOM! they use a new number. How long will I need to put up with this before they give up? :wow::wow::wow:
 

David3464

Red Shirt
2 Year Member
Newspapers would never make it now, if they started up. Can you imagine them saying, "yeah, but the internet is not something you can hold in your hands." Newspapers and the 3 major networks had their monopolies before the cable TV and internet came into power. Now, I can't think of too many reasons why anyone would want to pay for a newspaper. They don't have current news (internet is up to minute news); they cost moneywhile internet is mostly free for most news you can read). Surprisingly, most newspapers have RAISED their prices to meet their diminishing demand...seemingly the opposite of what an industry in falling sales should do. I just can't believe that most newspapers and magazines, in written form, will be gone within the next 5 years.
 
Top