Killing Freedom Of The Press
So: Knight-Ridder is selling out. Seventeen of the local newspapers in our major cities—the avant-garde press—were recently purchased by Village Voice Media, Inc. Increasingly, there is no way of knowing if we, the public, are receiving the knowledge necessary to develop opinions regarding American politics and events, and to affect change as we see fit.
Our press, more important at this point in American history than all the politicians in Washington, D.C. is being free-enterprised into something that may not be in the best interests of American citizens. These new owners of the LA Times just axed Robert Scheer, one of the foremost voices available to our country in terms of exposing the crud that passes for politics today with the explanation in the article following, which is as insulting as a pat on the head would be for a traumatic amputation. “Now, now children: don’t worry about it, it’s all going to be just fine—we’re taking care of you.” Right.
Spare me. The danger of the wealthiest citizens motivated by a private agenda of greed controlling the American press is becoming a reality more than the possibility of this occurrence was the product of ‘paranoia’. Paranoia isn’t enough and apologies for suspecting the worst are no longer an option to any reader with more than a few brain cells. This selling of our newspapers to the wealthiest 1% calls for anger and action.
Our nation’s newspapers and alternative press are rapidly being brought under control by the simple capitalistic action of buying them and then, seemingly, dumping the writers who disagree with the agenda of the new owners.
Robert Scheer will be missed, but that was yesterday: Today, America is in upheaval and tomorrow brings the reality of news events totally interpreted by the wealthiest 1% of Americans who are, no doubt, in a state of panic because their main puppet, Mr. Bush, has had his strings cut by the same press they wish to control.
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-martinez15nov15,0,7356300.story?track=tothtml
A note to our readers
ANDRÉS MARTINEZ
November 15, 2005
WHEN A columnist misses his usual spot in the rotation, we normally run a short note explaining his absence. Today, Robert Scheer's column will not appear. Consider this a longer-than-usual note of explanation.Scheer's impassioned prose has graced these pages for 13 years. Last week we announced a new roster of 10 columnists that will appear on this page every week, and Scheer's name was not on it. Hundreds of readers called and wrote to protest. We are grateful — humbled — that readers care so deeply about the content of these opinion pages and the columnists who appear on them.Assessing the merits of a column, like assessing the merits of a movie, is a subjective exercise, so readers can agree to disagree over the wisdom of our decision. It's inaccurate, however, to ascribe ideological motives to our decision to stop running Scheer's column.Some readers have complained that The Times is conspiring to silence liberal voices on the Op-Ed page. Others have gone so far as to suggest that Scheer is being punished for opposing the war in Iraq. But that is hardly a badge of shame around here — the newspaper's own editorial page opposed the decision to invade Iraq.The truth is that we now publish more Op-Ed columnists — early in 2004 we featured only three regular columnists — than ever before, including more liberal voices (and conservative ones) than ever before. It's also true that some of our columnists are not easily labeled on either side of the ideological divide, which we think is healthy. The goal, as always, remains to offer readers a lively exchange of opinions from across the political spectrum.Several of the writers in the new lineup are familiar to you, as they have been appearing on our pages for a few months; others are brand new to the page. Together, they represent our commitment to inform and enlighten the public debate by offering a provocative mix of voices on local, national and foreign affairs.You will be reading more about our columnists in the weeks ahead, and we urge you to develop a relationship with them. We appreciate the hurt and anger that many readers feel over Robert Scheer's absence. We fervently hope to be inundated by a similar outpouring when one of our new columnists ends his or her run.- Andrés MartinezEditorial Page Editor
_______________________________________________________________
Friday, October 28, 2005 - 12:00 AM
Editorial
The mega-weekly comes to Seattle
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2002587927_newsed28.html
The dangerous march toward monolithic media has now threatened the irreverent and vibrant alternative press. The latest assault on the independent press is the creation of a mega-chain of weeklies that stretch from Florida to Seattle.
The merger of Phoenix-based New Times Media and New York-based Village Voice Media, which owns the Seattle Weekly, is bad for democracy. The merger places 17 weeklies under the control of New Times, which will take the name of the company it cannibalized. The new Village Voice Media will have a free circulation of 1.8 million readers, or 24 percent of the circulation of the 126 weeklies that make up the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. The Department of Justice, which must approve such a far-reaching merger, should keep the public's interest in mind and reject the agreement.
For nearly three decades, independent newspapers, television and radio stations have been steamrolled by bottom-line-driven consolidation and corporatization. Now it is the turn of the alternative press to feel the cold grip of consolidation. Just as daily newspaper corporate behemoths like Gannett have too many tentacles in too many communities, the newly minted Village Voice Media has overstepped its bounds.
The folding of the Weekly into a large chain became nearly impossible to escape when local owners sold in 1997 to the Village Voice. Weekly editors, who have enjoyed autonomy since the sale, will now report to corporate in Phoenix, which will control 62 percent of the company.
The 11 New Times papers tend to look similar and do not weigh in on the public dialogue with political endorsements. This Phoenix-dictated approach is a stark contrast to the public discourse Seattle Weekly readers have come to expect since its founding in 1976.
So when does the "alternative" press lose its claim as the feisty underdog that is intensely connected to its community? Judging from the New Times/Village Voice's very corporate press release, which contained lines like "current portfolio of newspapers and online assets," any alternative in 17 cities died with Tuesday's announcement.
Readers are ill-served when newspapers cease to be viewed as newspapers but as assets in a portfolio. The consolidation of another layer of the press is a blow to democracy and a loss for Seattle.
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
Our press, more important at this point in American history than all the politicians in Washington, D.C. is being free-enterprised into something that may not be in the best interests of American citizens. These new owners of the LA Times just axed Robert Scheer, one of the foremost voices available to our country in terms of exposing the crud that passes for politics today with the explanation in the article following, which is as insulting as a pat on the head would be for a traumatic amputation. “Now, now children: don’t worry about it, it’s all going to be just fine—we’re taking care of you.” Right.
Spare me. The danger of the wealthiest citizens motivated by a private agenda of greed controlling the American press is becoming a reality more than the possibility of this occurrence was the product of ‘paranoia’. Paranoia isn’t enough and apologies for suspecting the worst are no longer an option to any reader with more than a few brain cells. This selling of our newspapers to the wealthiest 1% calls for anger and action.
Our nation’s newspapers and alternative press are rapidly being brought under control by the simple capitalistic action of buying them and then, seemingly, dumping the writers who disagree with the agenda of the new owners.
Robert Scheer will be missed, but that was yesterday: Today, America is in upheaval and tomorrow brings the reality of news events totally interpreted by the wealthiest 1% of Americans who are, no doubt, in a state of panic because their main puppet, Mr. Bush, has had his strings cut by the same press they wish to control.
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-martinez15nov15,0,7356300.story?track=tothtml
A note to our readers
ANDRÉS MARTINEZ
November 15, 2005
WHEN A columnist misses his usual spot in the rotation, we normally run a short note explaining his absence. Today, Robert Scheer's column will not appear. Consider this a longer-than-usual note of explanation.Scheer's impassioned prose has graced these pages for 13 years. Last week we announced a new roster of 10 columnists that will appear on this page every week, and Scheer's name was not on it. Hundreds of readers called and wrote to protest. We are grateful — humbled — that readers care so deeply about the content of these opinion pages and the columnists who appear on them.Assessing the merits of a column, like assessing the merits of a movie, is a subjective exercise, so readers can agree to disagree over the wisdom of our decision. It's inaccurate, however, to ascribe ideological motives to our decision to stop running Scheer's column.Some readers have complained that The Times is conspiring to silence liberal voices on the Op-Ed page. Others have gone so far as to suggest that Scheer is being punished for opposing the war in Iraq. But that is hardly a badge of shame around here — the newspaper's own editorial page opposed the decision to invade Iraq.The truth is that we now publish more Op-Ed columnists — early in 2004 we featured only three regular columnists — than ever before, including more liberal voices (and conservative ones) than ever before. It's also true that some of our columnists are not easily labeled on either side of the ideological divide, which we think is healthy. The goal, as always, remains to offer readers a lively exchange of opinions from across the political spectrum.Several of the writers in the new lineup are familiar to you, as they have been appearing on our pages for a few months; others are brand new to the page. Together, they represent our commitment to inform and enlighten the public debate by offering a provocative mix of voices on local, national and foreign affairs.You will be reading more about our columnists in the weeks ahead, and we urge you to develop a relationship with them. We appreciate the hurt and anger that many readers feel over Robert Scheer's absence. We fervently hope to be inundated by a similar outpouring when one of our new columnists ends his or her run.- Andrés MartinezEditorial Page Editor
_______________________________________________________________
Friday, October 28, 2005 - 12:00 AM
Editorial
The mega-weekly comes to Seattle
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2002587927_newsed28.html
The dangerous march toward monolithic media has now threatened the irreverent and vibrant alternative press. The latest assault on the independent press is the creation of a mega-chain of weeklies that stretch from Florida to Seattle.
The merger of Phoenix-based New Times Media and New York-based Village Voice Media, which owns the Seattle Weekly, is bad for democracy. The merger places 17 weeklies under the control of New Times, which will take the name of the company it cannibalized. The new Village Voice Media will have a free circulation of 1.8 million readers, or 24 percent of the circulation of the 126 weeklies that make up the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. The Department of Justice, which must approve such a far-reaching merger, should keep the public's interest in mind and reject the agreement.
For nearly three decades, independent newspapers, television and radio stations have been steamrolled by bottom-line-driven consolidation and corporatization. Now it is the turn of the alternative press to feel the cold grip of consolidation. Just as daily newspaper corporate behemoths like Gannett have too many tentacles in too many communities, the newly minted Village Voice Media has overstepped its bounds.
The folding of the Weekly into a large chain became nearly impossible to escape when local owners sold in 1997 to the Village Voice. Weekly editors, who have enjoyed autonomy since the sale, will now report to corporate in Phoenix, which will control 62 percent of the company.
The 11 New Times papers tend to look similar and do not weigh in on the public dialogue with political endorsements. This Phoenix-dictated approach is a stark contrast to the public discourse Seattle Weekly readers have come to expect since its founding in 1976.
So when does the "alternative" press lose its claim as the feisty underdog that is intensely connected to its community? Judging from the New Times/Village Voice's very corporate press release, which contained lines like "current portfolio of newspapers and online assets," any alternative in 17 cities died with Tuesday's announcement.
Readers are ill-served when newspapers cease to be viewed as newspapers but as assets in a portfolio. The consolidation of another layer of the press is a blow to democracy and a loss for Seattle.
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
posted by FancyRage at 10:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home