Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zrk2]

Because occasionally everyone gets something right.

[mainiac]

Well yeah but so do monkeys at a keyboard and we don't read them on the off chance something smart comes from that.

[Lagslayer]

It gives you insight into how people think. It isn't always about if they are actually right and wrong, because people act on what they believe is right.

[Owlbread]

Well yeah but so do monkeys at a keyboard and we don't read them on the off chance something smart comes from that.

No matter how bad newspapers are don't be so hyperbolic as to compare them to monkeys at a keyboard. I'm saying that and I have a lot of bones to pick with newspapers.

[mainiac]

I'm not saying that newspapers are like monkeys at a keyboard, I'm saying that just saying something is a potential source of information doesn't mean it's a worthwhile use of time.  Literally everything is a potential source of information but we shouldn't waste our time with bad sources like the Washington Times.

[lordcooper]

To put it bluntly (and a little arrogantly), sometimes it is valuable to know what the mentally undeveloped masses are reading and taking as fact.

[Lagslayer]

To put it bluntly (and a little arrogantly), sometimes it is valuable to know what the mentally undeveloped masses are reading and taking as fact.

+1

[MaximumZero]

I'm not saying that newspapers are like monkeys at a keyboard, I'm saying that just saying something is a potential source of information doesn't mean it's a worthwhile use of time.  Literally everything is a potential source of information but we shouldn't waste our time with bad sources like the Washington Times.

That's kind of sweeping under the rug new, unestablished writers who haven't moved on yet, or writers with an "individual" point of view that didn't catch on elsewhere. Dismissing the information because of its source without reading it is kind of ignorant.

[mainiac]

That's kind of sweeping under the rug new, unestablished writers who haven't moved on yet, or writers with an "individual" point of view that didn't catch on elsewhere. Dismissing the information because of its source without reading it is kind of ignorant.

If not reading a paper is "dismissing the information" then why might I ask, are you dismissing the Des Moines Register, the Adventist Today, the Star Democrat and every other paper on earth that you don't read?  In a perfect world we'd have time to read everything under the sun but clearly we don't live in such a world.

I'm not saying that the Washington Times is incapable of getting stuff right.  I'm just saying they aren't a good newspaper and you should go for something less shody like maybe the Washington Post.

[Owlbread]

There are sometimes articles that can only be found in rag newspapers. I read an "exclusive" interview in the Sun with Dennis Rodman and after wading through the terrible tabloid writing I was then able to walk away confirming that the man is a daft bugger who has no real business in the Koreas. I wouldn't have known that if I'd been such a snob that I couldn't bring myself to read such a newspaper.

[mainiac]

And why could you have not concluded this reading a good paper and saved yourself the tabloid writing?

There is a logical leap between "it's possible that this paper has value" and "this paper has value".

[Sheb]

Because that terrible tabloid had content no good paper had. Tabloids tend to hame much larger circulations than good papers and thus can also afford more (although not always better) staff, which mean they can cover more things. Lot of these things are dog being run over or celebrities doing stupid things, but they still cover more real event as well.

[Owlbread]

Though I'm ashamed to say it, tabloids also provide more of the sensationalist nitty-gritty details that broadsheets will omit - like whether or not the murder victim was really beheaded or if that was just a rumour.

[MaximumZero]

If not reading a paper is "dismissing the information" then why might I ask, are you dismissing the Des Moines Register, the Adventist Today, the Star Democrat and every other paper on earth that you don't read?  In a perfect world we'd have time to read everything under the sun but clearly we don't live in such a world.

I'm not saying that the Washington Times is incapable of getting stuff right.

I don't read a lot of newspapers because they're not available in my area. I don't read the Washington Post or the Washington Times because I'm in Michigan. When I read newspapers, I usually read the Detroit Free Press, the New York Times, and the USA Today. That's what's available here. There are some niche papers available, but I don't usually fall into their readership demographic. Sometimes the Battle Creek Enquirer has a good story in it, and I'll read that, even though they don't usually run terribly good stories because they have a hard time affording any writers who are anything more than "aspiring".

I'm just saying they aren't a good newspaper and you should go for something less shody like maybe the Washington Post.

This is different than just not reading something. This is a) not reading it, b) influencing others to read it, and c) discrediting anything that could possibly have been in that paper. This here is called "being a snob". Please don't do that, no one benefits from it.

[RedKing]

@MZ: I agree with you in principle, but...the Washington Times is damn near worthless as a souce of reliable information.

Rule of thumb with the two big East Coast bellweathers:

New York
Times: Mostly reliable.
Post: Birdcage liner

Washington
Times: Birdcage liner
Post: Mostly reliable.