jumper03 0 #26 April 13, 2004 Quote But those sort of editorial decisions are not censorship. But here comes the money demon. Aren't most editorial decisions made with ratings in mind? Is that why they wouldn't read the entire thing? Not enough 'shock' value? Who's to say what is and isn't news worthy? What is news to you may be junk to me and vice-versa. Sorry for the rant but I'm still pissed about the NY times putting the pics they did on the front page a few weeks ago. JumpScars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #27 April 13, 2004 >Aren't most editorial decisions made with ratings in mind? Definitely! Which means they report what people want to read. So far it seems like people don't want absurd lies (hence the Weekly World News doesn't get a lot of sales) but they also don't want long boring tomes (hence C-SPAN is usually not too popular.) >Is that why they wouldn't read the entire thing? Not enough 'shock' value? Not enough interest on the part of their readers. A lot of people prefer an Action McNews version of things, with emphasis on "action." >Who's to say what is and isn't news worthy? You are! Support news services that report news the way you want it reported. >Sorry for the rant but I'm still pissed about the NY times putting the >pics they did on the front page a few weeks ago. So don't read it. If everyone follows your lead they will go out of business and be replaced by the Wall Street Journal, who never puts sensational pictures on their front page. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #28 April 13, 2004 I agree with some of what you said, Bill, and I realise there is no easy answer here.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
