chef4131 Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 On a Sunday morning when radio/TV/Social media outlets are reporting the new HC of the Buffalo Bills, I open the Buffalo news to find a front page article in the sports section on how Lovie Smith would like to be the next HC of the Bills, The paper was so far behind the news of the new HC. I would have to consider the Newspaper in the same thoughts as 8 track tapes and a VCR.
The Poojer Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 that example is an unfair statement about print media, it would appear by the timing that all of the newspapers should have been delivered by the time the news broke around 5.30-6AM...if you want to come up with a more relevant example you may get some support in your argument...this just isn't one of them. On a Sunday morning when radio/TV/Social media outlets are reporting the new HC of the Buffalo Bills, I open the Buffalo news to find a front page article in the sports section on how Lovie Smith would like to be the next HC of the Bills, The paper was so far behind the news of the new HC. I would have to consider the Newspaper in the same thoughts as 8 track tapes and a VCR.
Acantha Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 that example is an unfair statement about print media, it would appear by the timing that all of the newspapers should have been delivered by the time the news broke around 5.30-6AM...if you want to come up with a more relevant example you may get some support in your argument...this just isn't one of them. How so? He didn't say the paper did something wrong, just that the format is outdated.
The Poojer Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) because you cannot expect the paper to be up to the minute breaking news....never has been...the .com site yeah...that's kind of like complaining because night is too dark....print media is not irrelevant...it just needs to be supplemented and it has been for a few years now... keep in mind not everyone in this country has access to up to the minute news, weather & sports, there are a lot of people that still use the newspaper(and the yellowpages--thank god) for their information... How so? He didn't say the paper did something wrong, just that the format is outdated. Edited January 7, 2013 by The Poojer
Acantha Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 because you cannot expect the paper to be up to the minute breaking news....never has been...the .com site yeah...that's kind of like complaining because night is too dark....print media is not irrelevant...it just needs to be supplemented and it has been for a few years now... I disagree. Once upon a time, print media was supplemented in the breaking news department by TV and radio, and that relationship worked. The detail and research put into print was normally far superior to anything you could get from the other sources. That's just not the case most of the time now. Current news outlets (blogs, social media, etc...) are horrible, but there's so much of it that there very rarely any detail that you can find in physical print media that you haven't already read a dozen times. In addition, in order to try to compete with those other sources, the quality of newspaper articles has plummeted over the past 10 years. I used to get a Sunday paper delivered and pick up a paper on the way to work every day. It took a little while for me to realize it how bad it had become, but I finally shook off old habits and stopped the insanity of reading badly written, outdated articles. I suppose there are still good newspapers out there with top notch research and writing, but from what I can find, they are about as rare as a very well written blog, and at least that will have the most recent info.
dave mcbride Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 The paper had been printed at about midnight-1am the night before? It was noted on the buffalo news website not long after it happened. Not sure what you want here? Are we that desperate for up-to-the-moment news?? I'll take the the new york times and economist over the adam schefter any freaking day.
Mr. WEO Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 How so? He didn't say the paper did something wrong, just that the format is outdated. Of course he did, specifically. He blamed the paper for not printing a story after the paper went to press. See Poojer's post.
dave mcbride Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 I disagree. Once upon a time, print media was supplemented in the breaking news department by TV and radio, and that relationship worked. The detail and research put into print was normally far superior to anything you could get from the other sources. That's just not the case most of the time now. Current news outlets (blogs, social media, etc...) are horrible, but there's so much of it that there very rarely any detail that you can find in physical print media that you haven't already read a dozen times. In addition, in order to try to compete with those other sources, the quality of newspaper articles has plummeted over the past 10 years. I used to get a Sunday paper delivered and pick up a paper on the way to work every day. It took a little while for me to realize it how bad it had become, but I finally shook off old habits and stopped the insanity of reading badly written, outdated articles. I suppose there are still good newspapers out there with top notch research and writing, but from what I can find, they are about as rare as a very well written blog, and at least that will have the most recent info. I suggest looking around a bit. The nyt, wsj, washington post, boston globe (to a lesser extent) are all good. And believe it or not, the buffalo news is far better at investigative reporting than it was 15 years ago. The editor of the news was recently hired as the nyt public editor. She's by all accounts one of the better people in the biz. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/margaret-sullivan-new-york-times-public-editor_n_1676929.html
Mark80 Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 because you cannot expect the paper to be up to the minute breaking news....never has been...the .com site yeah...that's kind of like complaining because night is too dark....print media is not irrelevant...it just needs to be supplemented and it has been for a few years now... keep in mind not everyone in this country has access to up to the minute news, weather & sports, there are a lot of people that still use the newspaper(and the yellowpages--thank god) for their information... Dinosaurs.
Acantha Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 I suggest looking around a bit. The nyt, wsj, washington post, boston globe (to a lesser extent) are all good. And believe it or not, the buffalo news is far better at investigative reporting than it was 15 years ago. The editor of the news was recently hired as the nyt public editor. She's by all accounts one of the better people in the biz. http://www.huffingto..._n_1676929.html I've tried the NYT and Washington Post and on the whole, I can't stand them. Yes, there are decent articles, and if you spend a couple hours searching, you might find one. The WSJ just isn't my cup of tea, but I won't comment one way or the other on quality. May be the greatest thing since sliced bread as far as I know. Never touched a Boston Globe. My point is, for what I can get searching through the Washington Post and NYT, I can find excellent writers on line that do a blog post or two a week, and not only are they current, I can find follow-ups commentary and links galore to anything else I want to know about the subject, right there on the spot. I don't have any negative issues with newspaper, but I do think it is absurd the way people continue to defend it like it's a religion (and I admit I was one of those people for far too long). Sorry, I realized I'm off on a tangent. This debate has gone on in many forms for a long time and I'm not adding anything new. To get back to the original point, I do not think the OP said anything unfair about newspapers. He simply stated a fact. The paper, by very virtue of it's design, is a completely out of date format.
The Poojer Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 I am kind of on your side...can't remember the last time i held an actual newspaper, it is definitely a flawed concept in todays high-tech age, but i wouldn't call it irrelevant I've tried the NYT and Washington Post and on the whole, I can't stand them. Yes, there are decent articles, and if you spend a couple hours searching, you might find one. The WSJ just isn't my cup of tea, but I won't comment one way or the other on quality. May be the greatest thing since sliced bread as far as I know. Never touched a Boston Globe. My point is, for what I can get searching through the Washington Post and NYT, I can find excellent writers on line that do a blog post or two a week, and not only are they current, I can find follow-ups commentary and links galore to anything else I want to know about the subject, right there on the spot. I don't have any negative issues with newspaper, but I do think it is absurd the way people continue to defend it like it's a religion (and I admit I was one of those people for far too long). Sorry, I realized I'm off on a tangent. This debate has gone on in many forms for a long time and I'm not adding anything new. To get back to the original point, I do not think the OP said anything unfair about newspapers. He simply stated a fact. The paper, by very virtue of it's design, is a completely out of date format.
Delete This Account Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 On a Sunday morning when radio/TV/Social media outlets are reporting the new HC of the Buffalo Bills, I open the Buffalo news to find a front page article in the sports section on how Lovie Smith would like to be the next HC of the Bills, The paper was so far behind the news of the new HC. I would have to consider the Newspaper in the same thoughts as 8 track tapes and a VCR. and yet, if you went online, you could see that The Buffalo News did have news of Marrone. though the print media, initially, was slow to adapt in this modern age, newspapers have turned to the internet to enhance their ability to provide up to date news. the criticism you present here is not a new one. back in the day, if something broke at 2 a.m. after publishing deadlines and was reported on TV and/or radio, then the same criticism would apply. and yet, in today's world, i think your criticism is less apt because "newspapers" are more capable than ever to provide news when it happens. it's called the internet. jw
tombstone56 Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) i totally agree!! Edited January 7, 2013 by tombstone56
peterpan Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 because you cannot expect the paper to be up to the minute breaking news Which is why its outdated.......
whateverdude Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 "newspapers" are more capable than ever to provide news when it happens. jw Unless you work for the Rochester D&C who has fired most of the reporting staff and now mostly parrots the AP.
KD in CA Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 The WSJ just isn't my cup of tea Even if you aren't interested in the financial news, the first section of the WSJ is by far the best 'news' section of any paper I've read. I think the other issue at play here is that local news has been totally diminished in favor of national stories (which is either over-reporting of politics or 90% nonsense pumped up by big media). Therefore you don't need many local reporters and the local media is largely re-reporting what you already heard ten times today.
Pete Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 During the power outage from Sandy, I would go buy a newspaper to see what was going on in the world. If the internet goes down, the newspaper is very relevant.
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 and yet, if you went online, you could see that The Buffalo News did have news of Marrone. though the print media, initially, was slow to adapt in this modern age, newspapers have turned to the internet to enhance their ability to provide up to date news. the criticism you present here is not a new one. back in the day, if something broke at 2 a.m. after publishing deadlines and was reported on TV and/or radio, then the same criticism would apply. and yet, in today's world, i think your criticism is less apt because "newspapers" are more capable than ever to provide news when it happens. it's called the internet. jw Of course, what doesn't help is that the web site of the Buffalo News is a POS. Is there any worse layout of a web site out there?
jethro_tull Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 Internet info is in danger of losing credibility because things are so fast and furious. this chip kelly deal where he was signed by the browns, then the eagles, then opted out of the NFL altogether- and andy reid had an agreement with the cardinals and then the chiefs- quite a joke. what are you supposed to believe? or do we wait for "confirmation" first?
NoSaint Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 Internet info is in danger of losing credibility because things are so fast and furious. this chip kelly deal where he was signed by the browns, then the eagles, then opted out of the NFL altogether- and andy reid had an agreement with the cardinals and then the chiefs- quite a joke. what are you supposed to believe? or do we wait for "confirmation" first? There's very little news wise that your average person really needs to know IMMEDIATELY, but we all need it accurately. There's something to be said for putting away the twitter feeds and just reading the headlines in the morning.
Recommended Posts