"Barack Obama, have mercy on us!" cried the lepers of the newspaper media unto the president-elect. And lo, he spake unto them, saying, "Go, and print some more."
Noticing heavy demand for post-Election Day editions of major daily newspapers, Newsweek wondered of President-elect Obama, "Can He Save the Media?"
The subheader to Newsweek's front page tease promised a look at "[h]ow Obama has reinvigorated newsstand sales."
In his 7-paragraph November 13 Web exclusive, writer Johnnie L. Roberts offered a Magic 8-ball-like -- "reply hazy, try again" -- answer to the question posed in the headline, heralding the demand for historic November 5 newspaper reprint as "at least a temporary reversal of fortune that the print industry plans to bank on up to and beyond the inauguration":
Spikes of this nature, while rare, aren't unique. And experts agree that even Obama's journalistic appeal won't solve print media's decline in the long term. "You see spikes whenever there's a historic event," says John Morton of Morton Research Inc., the veteran newspaper analyst. "This was probably at least the equivalent of the ones for the end of [the world] wars." Unfortunately, he notes, "it's not the golden bullet that saves the industry." The print media is still looking at the same tough economic picture, but at least Obama has brought a temporary reprieve.
Left completely out of consideration in Roberts's piece, however, was the role the mainstream print media's liberal biases have and will continue to play in alienating audiences and driving them to the ideological and journalistic diversity available on the Web.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Only if the print media starts printing Obama t-shirts...
November 14, 2008 - 23:01 ET by moovovaOnly if the print media starts printing Obama t-shirts...
For the next four years, he
November 14, 2008 - 12:22 ET by semolina_filcherFor the next four years, he may have saved the leftstreampress. After all, He is their creation.
Obama is not mein fuhrer
I'm not even sure that's
November 14, 2008 - 12:59 ET by TD in FLI'm not even sure that's true. Since the rags now have their man in office, the bigger question becomes, will they be critical of him? Most of us would agree that the answer would be no. Initially, this is not a problem for the blind population that voted for him just for change (independents, young people, and others who are open to many views/stances); but I guarantee you, when things do not get better and in fact get worse, the patience of many of those same supporters will wane. They will turn to print media among other sources as their voice of disapproval. However, when the media distorts reality and shields Obama from all criticism and blame, this will frustrate that bloc. Consequently, revenue will continue to decline as people search for alternatives grounded in realism - of which there are many.
These rags would have had a better chance of survival had Obama lost, giving them continuous ammunition to feed the disgruntled liberals. To put it in perspective, if you were unemployed and voted for Obama, yet things remained bad for you... would you continue to subscribe to a news source that continues to paint a rosey and upbeat picture? This is the ultimate test of survival for the print media.
Because of their crafty but
November 14, 2008 - 13:11 ET by semolina_filcherBecause of their crafty but strictly manipulative creation that was Obama, the idea is for him to be catapulted to power. With that power firmly in hand, everything that Obama does will not be subjected to serious scrutiny by the leftist media, print included. We (the average American) all know the media do not have credibility. They know no hallowed ground as per reporting a fair and balanced issue but from their viewpoint alone, having the One (whom they can manipulate) is their key to survival--at least for the next four years. After that, who knows.
What I'm trying to get at is the media always seem to treat a Democrat president better than any Republican presidency that I've gone through....
I concur with your
November 14, 2008 - 13:30 ET by TD in FLI concur with your sentiment. However, I think the media being complicit in the bungling-to-come would be a disasterous business move. Their bias nature has driven sales down; there is a relatively simple correlation to make here. Because they continue to ignore this, they are essentially breaking their fiduciary duty to their shareholders (don't be a bagholder).
The print media continues to blame The Internet as the source of its decline. But really, they all have websites too. If you actually put out quality journalism, you would only see a cannibalization of sales (from a company's physical newspapers to their website subscriptions). In reality though, people are ditching the MSM all-together in favor of alternative media sources, who have proven to put out high quality work.
Well said. Fair
November 14, 2008 - 13:33 ET by semolina_filcherWell said. Fair enough.
Obama is not mein fuhrer
TD in Fl - Many People are Just Plain Stupid!
November 16, 2008 - 09:35 ET by Rush FanTD in Fl wrote: "To put it in perspective, if you were unemployed and voted for Obama, yet things remained bad for you... would you continue to subscribe to a news source that continues to paint a rosey and upbeat picture?"
The answer to that question is sadly YES! Many people in this country are ill-informed, apathetic, or just plain stupid.
They are the type of person who will vote for "Change" without knowing (or caring) what that change is.
They are the type of person who believes "Bush lied us into war."
They are the type of person (over 150,00) who voted for Cynthia McKinney for President.
They are the type of person, such as Colin Powell, who believes that Gov. Sarah Palin is not qualified to be President but Barack Obama is, and those who believe him when he says that race did not enter into his decision.
They are the type of person who will re-elect New Orleans Mayor Ray (school bus) Nagin, Congressman William J. (money in the freezer) Jefferson, Congresswoman Laura (no money down) Richardson, Senator Edward (drowning cover-up) Kennedy, or Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, (Insert Name Here).
To think that those type of persons have voting privileges is scary!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
“The sum of intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing.” ~ George Bernard Shaw
No.
November 14, 2008 - 12:22 ET by ThalpyNo.
unless..
November 14, 2008 - 12:25 ET by katainkentthey're bailed out, nationalised.
member of the Conservative Independant Witness Protection Program since Nov. 5, 2008
Like Pravda?
November 14, 2008 - 12:31 ET by Ken ShepherdLike Pravda?
well..
November 14, 2008 - 12:43 ET by katainkentGE already got $140 billion(ish) from the Government. And GE owns NBC, MSNBC and CBNC so technically... we're already susidizing media paychecks.
member of the Conservative Independant Witness Protection Program since Nov. 5, 2008
No, Obama can't save print
November 14, 2008 - 12:33 ET by suzycreamcheeseNo, Obama can't save print media. His election was big news for some in this country, and they bought up the newspapers the day after his win. The same way I bought up magazines to keep on 9/12/2001 and the Harry Potter issue of Entertainment.
John Morton of Morton
November 14, 2008 - 12:33 ET by jdhawkJohn Morton of Morton Research Inc., the veteran newspaper analyst may want to find another line of work. My guess is that all "newspaper analysts" will be veterans before to long.
I love the O-Bible
November 14, 2008 - 12:38 ET by wiwfI love the O-Bible passages. I hope someone's keeping track of them all!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Yes he can!
November 14, 2008 - 12:44 ET by BKeyserMy October 14th post on Townhall.com included my predictions for the print media:
Never fear though, the "New Media" or "State-Run Media" will be nearly indistinguishable from the current print media.
'The Newspaper Recovery Act of 2009'...
November 14, 2008 - 13:43 ET by wnaegele...will see a government bailout of hundreds of millions of dollars for the print media, i.e., 'The New York Times', 'The Washington Post', 'The Los Angeles Times', etc., to keep them afloat. The government will then have a piece of these publications -- but since they are already wholly creatures of Obama...
The Viagra effect
November 14, 2008 - 13:48 ET by RackieThe print media is still looking at the same tough economic picture, but at least Obama has brought a temporary reprieve.
If you experience a reprieve longer than four hours, call your doctor.
Thanks Rackie....
November 15, 2008 - 05:23 ET by old croYou gave me a good chuckle.
Media backs are in need of scratching
November 14, 2008 - 15:08 ET by pocomocoNewsweek Wonders If Obama Can Save Print Media
THE MEDIA: Quid Pro Quo Obama, Quid Pro Quo!!!
Bias???
November 14, 2008 - 15:25 ET by EdfromvaWhat bias? LOL
This is just another example proving that people who continue to believe there is no media bias just don't have a clue.
Sure they will blame the
November 14, 2008 - 15:26 ET by TN MomSure they will blame the economy, but I would still be sending my check for subscribtions if they hadn't been soooo biased in their coverage for Obama.
I can't wait...
November 14, 2008 - 19:07 ET by docjohn52Closed and boarded. I will never buy another. Not one, ever!
They dug their own hole, and I can't wait until they're occupying it.
Seems they have a dog in the
November 14, 2008 - 22:55 ET by Jamson64Seems they have a dog in the fight. They should not be allowed to comment on such things. //Sarc
It could have happened.
November 15, 2008 - 01:19 ET by pbthinkerObama could have saved the media in general, and the print media in particular, a year ago, had they not decided to be cheerleaders. Of the outlets mentioned, not one of them chose to vet Senator Obama. What would have happened if, say a Newsweek had decided to start asking some questions? Of course we'll never know, but the point is they would have been perceived as different.
Can anyone think of one MSM group, besides FOX, that actually was interested in finding out about Obama? I can't, for the life of me, think of one. I only remember Obama have to answer one set of tough questions and that was the debate with Hillary when George and Charles Gibson went after him. When they got their hides tanned, the following day, by every liberal in town, they decided it was in their best interest to roll over, just like the rest of the media.
They can't say they didn't have a chance to play real journalists, looking for a real story, in an election that had meaning to it. They had the chance and they all blew it.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
yes he can!
November 15, 2008 - 02:20 ET by gordonDer Fuhrer can save his buddies at the NYT by destroying their competition with his new cure-all.....The Fairness Doctrine.
Presto! Your competitors disappear and you are free to print the government propaganda that will pass as truth in the Obama Age.
Naw, people still wouldn't
November 15, 2008 - 07:12 ET by BDNaw, people still wouldn't read the NYT. THey would read cereal boxes instead.....