NY Times Correction, More Reasons Young People Don't Read Newspapers

[Rusty5329]

The New York Times ran an article titled "1 in 7 freed detainees rejoins fight, report says" which I used to explain a major reason young people do not read newspapers. The article regurgitated a claim by the Pentagon without the slightest bit of questioning or investigative journalism. I, and many others, questioned the legitimacy of this claim, but the reporters that brought us the news did not. Today they had to clarify...

continued at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/8/172425/4797?new=true

[kiva]

1. I agree that this was shoddy reporting, but am

confused by the headline that "more reasons young people don't read newspapers" - does this imply that older readers are OK with poorly researched articles?

[ContinentalOp]

2. No it simply states that young people don't read newspapers because we know they're full of shit.

It's up to older readers to explain why they still read the paper.

[EFerrari]

3. And the underlying assumption is that older people do read the NYTs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5629422

It would be interesting to see the demographics. Here in my neighborhood, I don't see any blue wrappers in the morning as I used to in 2004 or so. Their subscribers must be mostly townies by now.

[kiva]

5. So because SOME newspaper articles are poorly written

and researched, ALL newspapers are 'full of shit'. :crazy: While all bloggers are, of course, accurate in their reporting.

[EFerrari]

7. Poorly written? Is that a euphemism for outright lies and propaganda?

lol

The problem with the American press is not a stylistic one.

[kiva]

56. No, if you read my whole post you would have seen

'poorly written and researched'; translation: reporters who don't check their facts. As I said above, not all newspaper articles are accurate, never have been, but if you prefer the broad brush...

[EFerrari]

59. What research?

Is "research" a euphemism for checking the fax machine?

Good grief. Between Authorized Propaganda, the WaHo and the NYTs "We never met a war we didn't like", you don't need a broad brush. I could hit that target hungover, blindfolded and hung upside down.

[Rusty5329]

11. at least bloggers...

use links to original sources so that readers can see the supporting evidence themselves rather than just trusting the reporter to quote the evidence in an ethical manner. Online newspapers, like the Time could do that too, but they don't.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

18. Yeah, bloggers can be trusted, too - right .......

Citing links means nothing without quality control and an editor demanding a story be triangulated and some kind of accountability. Bloggers have none of that, and that's what renders so many of them worthless.

Online newspapers, like Time, have all the things I just cited - triangulation, editorial oversight, accountability and repercussions when a story goes bad.

Bloggers - the vast majority of them - are spewing worthless crap.................

[Rusty5329]

30. all that triangulation...

sure helped them to lie about why they originally f'd up the story. I never said bloggers can be trusted. I specifically don't trust bloggers either. If a blog has no links to sources and evidence, I assume it is complete crap.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

33. If you read my posts carefully -

and you obviously didn't, but I'm starting to get the impression that reading comprehension isn't your long suit - you'd see that I deplore the lack of journalistic standards in today's "reporting."

Links can lead to more crap. It's sort of like saying that because a book has a lot of footnotes, it's authoritative.

You stepped in it, my dear, and your recalcitrance is most unpleasant, and a bit sad, to witness.........................

[Rusty5329]

37. I'm not the one...

hurling insults

"I'm starting to get the impression that reading comprehension isn't your long suit"

Clearly you don't like my reading, your welcome to take you condescending bull shit elsewhere.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

41. The truth offends you?

That wasn't an insult, that was simply an observation, a statement of fact.

I'm not the one who posted the misleading Subject Line (and, believe me, "misleading" is a very kind word) so as to lead people to another post.

If you had something to say that proclaimed that young people don't read newspapers any more, and you had adequate and reliable and knowledgeable sources to back up that claim, you should have posted it.

Referring people to a previous post of yours is oddly self-indulgent and narcissistic. Either you have something to say, or you don't.

And, honey, if you find someone's opinion that differs from yours "condescending bull shit," well, you're awfully tender for someone who can't even write a decent and accurate Subject Line.

Enjoy your time at DU. You're off to a remarkably inaccurate start ...........

[TahitiNut]

42. "your(sic) welcome to take you(sic) condescending bull shit elsewhere."

Sic 'em, Fido.

:eyes:

[girl gone mad]

44. I call bullshit on your claim that the vast majority of bloggers "spew worthless crap"

Almost all bloggers have open comments sections where readers can state their opinions and criticisms in real time. THAT'S accountability.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

49. Yeah, the opinions of the mindless, faceless,

nameless millions - that's really a great backup and a stunning advertisement for authentic reporting.

Right.

You equate "comments" from strangers with some kind of worthwhile information delivery?

That's the same as giving any kind of value to the opinions of the people who call in to Rush Limbaugh or who email Bill O'Reilly.

Good luck. I hope that works out for you .........

[Rusty5329]

50. not all bloggers are "strangers"

Markos Moulitsas is a blogger, and you absolutely cannot equate him with "the people who call in to Rush Limbaugh"

[Tangerine LaBamba]

52. Once again, yes, the exception

proves the rule. DailyKos is the exception, but, consider something like politico.com, which looks, at first, imminently reasonable and accurate.

And then the light dawns ......................

[JonLP24]

6. Or maybe because they're boring or not interested

It was a reason why I never watched the news for the longest time then around the lead-up to the Iraq war I started paying attention. I was a republican by default because my grandparents and mom were republicans growing up. My grandparents are still republicans and my mom turned liberal before I did but I went in with an open mind and now I rank near Ghandi at http://www.politicalcompass.org.

Now I watch and read the news all the time and realize the vast majority of them don't tell the whole story and sometimes leave key information or misintepret key information.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

10. Well, that's absurd -

young people are more accustomed to getting their news on line, the same way they prefer cell phones and don't have land lines at home.

The notion that youngsters somehow have a better grasp of bullshit than their elders is, oh, let me count the ways:

1. presumptuous
2. baseless
3. inaccurate, and
4. bullshit............................

[Rusty5329]

13. if you read the original post for May 20th...

which was linked to in the diary, you would know that I said the number one reason young people don't read newspapers is that it is an outdated method for getting information.

But the extent to which we are lied to, the extend to which quotes are taken out of context, the extent to which MSM parrots talking points, has led my generation to be incredibly skeptical. This makes us more prone to trust a post that has links to evidence so we can seed it ourselves.

I never once said young people have a better grasp of bullshit than old people and I meant no offense to anyone.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

19. Your basic premise fails -

a link isn't worth anything when you're comparing the method of delivery of information with the information itself.

That's like saying giving birth is the same as a baby.

It's not, and your premise fails.

Your headline is woefully inaccurate and misleading...................

[rvablue]

35. Where do you get information about the country and world if you don't read newspapers

or the content generated by them?

How do you know anything?

[Captain Hilts]

4. Young people are more astute than other readers? Give me a break....nt

[Rusty5329]

9. in no way is this a jab...

at old people. In the post I wrote on May 20th (which is linked to in this diary) I say that the main reason young people don't read newspapers is that they are an outdated method for getting information.

I use that in the title because all statistics show that my generation goes to a newspaper for news far less often than all previous generations do. If you read the post I wrote on the day the first NY Times article came out, I think you would have a better understanding of what I meant.

I meant no offense to anyone.

[Captain Hilts]

12. Statistically, young people were never big newspaper readers, especially women under 30yrs. old. nt

[Tangerine LaBamba]

15. Let's not forget -

previous generations didn't have computers and the Internet(s) tubes.

That's all. It's just a new method of delivery, only instead of having to wade through annoying fliers and advertising inserts, readers have to slog through worthless blog after worthless blog, trying to ascertain the quality of what s/he is reading.

It's like kids today not having land lines at home, using a cell for everything.

That's all. The headline on the OP tried to put a slant on a story that wasn't valid....................

[TahitiNut]

46. How many newspapers are published in Sim City???

:dunce:

[Mike 03]

20. Yes, that is the most important and credible point.

Young people don't try it to begin with so are not in a position to be disappointed when newspapers make mistakes in the first place.

There is a failure of logic in this OP.

[ContinentalOp]

63. It's not a failure of logic...

because the perception that the media cannot be trusted is prevalent even among people who have never read a paper in their life. It's a perception shaped, not by reading the newspaper, but because of high profile journalism scandals like Jayson Blair and popular sources of media criticism like the Daily Show and the Onion.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

14. Then clean up your title,

because the do realize, I am assuming here, that the same articles appeared at nytimes.com, so you're commenting on the method of delivery, not the content.

That said, your OP doesn't indicate that at all, and your explanation doesn't fly ........................

[Rusty5329]

21. no...

I'm not changing the title. It is a fact that my generation gets news from newspapers less than all other generations. And I am not solely commenting on the method of delivery. NYTimes.com is no better about providing sources and links to evidence, which was the focus of the original post (from May 20th).

I apologize if anyone took offense, but at no point did I ever indicate that young people are somehow smarter or better at calling BS than anyone else.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

25. You fucked it up, then, and let it stand ......

Welcome to DU.

Enjoy your stay .......................

[armyowalgreens]

26. No you definitely did.

You implied that young people didn't read the newspaper because of inaccuracies. Which is a load of BS.

[Rusty5329]

34. this article was...

a follow up to another article (which I linked to in the post). If you didn't read the original article, I can see how you would think that.

I have already apologized to anyone that took offense, and stated that I meant no offense whatsoever, so you can either accept my apology or not.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

36. It's not about offense -

it's about accuracy.

Your Subject Line is wholly inaccurate, given the content of your post.

But, that's all right. Dig in and demand that people read everything you've written so that they can understand why your Subject Line isn't inaccurate.

It's inaccurate, and you're wrong to defend it. Read the posts you've gotten, all from people telling you the same thing.................

[Rusty5329]

40. I certianly...

concede the title did not work. Not all people felt as you did. In fact, 10 of the negative posts are yours, which is more than 25% of all the replies (at the time I wrote this).

No one but you, however, turned to personal insults.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

43. Ah, your poor tender sensibilities,

a response to your poor reading of what I wrote - aren't you taking offense at that very same thing? - has upset your poor self.

That's tragic, but I suspect you'll survive.

And that OP Subject Line is bullshit..............

[Rusty5329]

47. I'm not taking offense...

at "poor reading" of what you wrote.

Name one person that wouldn't be offended at hearing "reading comprehension isn't your long suit"

Oh my poor sensibilities.

[armyowalgreens]

38. I don't see a proper explanation in either of those articles...

to make a claim that one of the reasons why young people don't read print news is because of inaccuracies.

The title of that article is a claim without support.

As I said before, I don't read print news because internet news is free and easier to access. It has nothing to do with inaccuracies of print news.

[rvablue]

31. Where do you get your news then, if it is not from newspapers or content generated by newspapers?

Can you please share these amazing links that you have to "news" that does not involve newspapers or the content they generate.

Thank you.

[rvablue]

27. If you don't read newspapers or the content produced by newspapers how do you know about

anything going on in the country or in the world?

Are you clairvoyant?

[sendero]

54. Young people figured out long ago..

... that the "the media" is just out to make a buck and will print/say whatever bullshit their corporate masters tell them to.

I don't have the inclination to prove this to you, but it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that the demos for tv news and especially newspapers skew towards the older.

[spanone]

8. doesn't matter it will be quoted over and over along with chenee's claims

the correction means shit. this story came out in the height of the cheene bullshit and reinforced it.

[Mike 03]

16. You provide a reason for educated people to question what they read in newspapers, but this is a

poor argument indeed to rationalize why "young people don't read newspapers."

Apples and oranges.

[PfcHammer]

17. Corporate media is a bullshit factory

[Captain Hilts]

24. Not necessarily. The Wash Post - whose op-ed page I HATE, had some

fantastic reporting in the run up to the war. Very good stuff. Page A17+.

[G_j]

22. didn't the NYT publish bogus Pentagon crap

during the Vietnam war?

some things don't change much.

and any journalist with half a brain knows the Pentagon lies all the time!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

29. Boy, did you get it completely wrong!!!

You really stepped in it here, kiddo. You're thinking of the renowned "Pentagon Papers," but the NY Times was remarkably courageous in publishing them.

Better read your recent American history before you make a statement that uninformed again.....................

[EFerrari]

48. Not really. The NYTs never met a war it didn't like.

That they published the Pentagon Papers doesn't even begin to balance out the war mongering cr@p they've always published.

[G_j]

60. no, I was thinking about fake causality statistics.

I said nothing about the Pentagon Papers.
the only thing I seemed to have stepped in, was an mean spirited response from you.
:shrug:

[armyowalgreens]

23. As a young person, I don't read the paper because internet news is free

and easier to access.

It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the NY Times.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

32. Exactly ...........

The OP confuses the delivery system with the content.

And, quite surprisingly, he's digging in and refusing to correct the Subject Line because he, well, doesn't understand what he's said.................

[RedCappedBandit]

53. Yup, thats it. nt

[donco6]

28. Where's the "young people" connection? n/t

[steven johnson]

39. More lies, damn lies and statistics

New Yorkers' terrorist paranoia, a kind of PTSD, has them seeing boogy men and terrorists everywhere.

[ContinentalOp]

45. I really don't get all of the controversy here.

We're suddenly going to pretend that younger people aren't incredibly cynical about the news media? That our critical opinion of the media isn't shaped by sources like the Daily Show or the Onion, along with the rise of blatant propaganda sources like Fox News and all of the high-profile journalism scandals of the past decade?

This doesn't mean that young people are smarter or that older people are more gullible or anything. But if you're really going to try to deny that younger people have a different, more cynical relationship to the media than their elders, I think you've been asleep for the past 20 years.

[Mythsaje]

51. +1

[Tangerine LaBamba]

55. Absolutely -

that the alleged "journalists" now operating at the Times, the Post, and other newspapers and periodicals are nothing but stenographers who file what they're given without doing any fact-checking or investigative work to make sure it's reliable and true is inescapable.

That wasn't what people here were objecting to.

The Subject Line of the OP had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the post. There's nothing to indicate that bad reporting is why youngsters get their news in a different way. The simple fact, as stated here already, is that this generation is the first to be able to avail itself of the Internet and computers.

It's that simple. Kids don't skip printed periodicals because of their bad reporting - they skip them because they can get the same stuff for free. It's why I - not a young person - don't subscribe to any print news anymore. I get it all online, for free.

The Subject Line of the OP is erroneous, and has nothing to do with the content..............................

[ContinentalOp]

57. But young people aren't getting their news from the NY Times website.

They're getting it from the Daily Show.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

58. Yes, they are ........

and some of them are getting them for all sorts of places online - including the NYTimes.com and other, established organizations, but there are so many, it's a vast improvement over the old days, indeed. It's also true that a lot of what's online is crap, but that's also true of print periodicals...................

[EFerrari]

61. So, cynicism is the property of young people?

I think you're confusing older readers with conservative readers of the kind that tend not to question authority or, tend to choose one to defend. I'm more cynical about the media than either of my sons, that's for sure.

The Onion itself will be 21 this year and junk journalism is as old as journalism in America. It's certainly not a new phenomenon.

[ContinentalOp]

62. Aaaargh! No!

That doesn't follow any more logically from my post than the strange question in post #1 "does this imply that older readers are OK with poorly researched articles?" follows from the O.P.

Fine, you don't think that a significant segment of "young people"*, are cynical about the media. I thought that was an established stereotype.

*However we define that group. I'm sort of vainly lumping myself in there but I probably don't technically qualify anymore. :P I'm not sure what's up with truly young people, I was kind of thinking of the gen-xers who created things like The Onion and the Daily Show and made them popular.

Oh and the Onion is actually 253 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion#Fictional_history

[EFerrari]

64. Maybe I live in a bubble or something. I just honestly don't know anyone

who thinks you can get your news from a paper the way you get calcium from drinking milk, lol, except a few conservatives who swear by Faux and think Colbert is a Republican. :)

[ContinentalOp]

65. Well, presumably all of the people who still subscribe to newspapers and watch TV news...

those people being overwhelmingly "older".

"Young people continue to shun the newspaper. In 2007, just 33% of 18-to-24-year-olds and just 34% of 25-to-34-year-olds read a newspaper in an average week, according to data from Scarborough Research.9 This represents a decline of seven and six percentage points, respectively, since 2000. But the largest drop in readership is seen among those ages 35 to 44: since 2000 they have seen a 10 percentage point drop, from 53% to 43%."
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2008/narrative_newspapers_audience.php?cat=2&media=4


"For the just-completed 2007-08 TV season, CBS was oldest in live viewing with a median age of 54. ABC clocked in at 50, followed by NBC (49), Fox (44), CW (34) and Univision (34).

Among ad-supported cable nets, the news nets (along with older-skewing Hallmark Channel, Golf Channel and GSN's daytime sked) sport the most gray, with Fox News Channel's daytime and primetime skeds the absolute oldest, clocking in with a median age above 65."

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117988273.html?categoryid=14&cs=1