The Cincinnati market is heavily wealthy and heavily redneck. That's who they serve. The media doesn't give a shit about the comparatively small number of liberals who live within the city limits (nor the African-American minority present there). Markets (also known as money) are all that matters, so you can expect Cincinnati news to get worse before it gets any better (or before lawsuits start coming in). :|

 

That's why Black people in Cincinnnati buy the Cincinnati Herald. It's just straight up news and not infultrated by a bunch of partisan hacks. Why would anyone expect the Enquirer to give a damn about Black people or Black events? I'm sure most of the higher-ups at the Enquirer are White. That's almost like expecting the Bush Administration to care about Black issues. I'm sure they care to some extent but people always care more about what pertains to their own demographic.

Er...is it Gannett or Scripps that owns Al Jazeera?  Which owns the BBC?  The Beirut Daily Star?  The Jerusalem Post?  Pravda?  The blogosphere?  Dude, anyone with an ounce of interest can get news from anywhere in the frickin' world.  They can talk online with people on the ground in New Orleans during the hurricane.  They can see pictures, video, read text, chat, anything, with people all around the globe.  They can get email directly from Howard Dean during his campaign, unfiltered by any editor.  There has never, in the history of the world, been a time with a freer flow of information than we enjoy today.  There has never been a time in the history of the world where the danger of censorship was at a lower ebb.

 

That's a good thing...

This is sadly the "technology frees the mind" argument. The internet has opened up doors, but what most of us who make a good income fail to realize is that the VAST MAJORITY of the world doesn't have access to it. They still rely on "lower" forms of media like TV, Radio, and print. This is true even in America. A lot of Americans still don't have broadband.

 

http://www.internetworldstats.com/articles/art030.htm

 

1) You can access the internet without broadband.  Narrowband might not load CincinnatiRoads.com, but you can still get the BBC.  And according to the article you posted, 108MM Americans had access to any news source they were interested in in 2003.  You think this isn't unprecedented in the history of the world?

2) According to the site you posted, 227MM Americans, out of 331MM, have internet access.

3) The "VAST MAJORITY" of the rest of the world that lacks internet access is rapidly becoming less vast.  Again, according to the site you posted, 816MM out of 6.2B people in the rest of the world have internet access.  Do you not think that this is utterly without precedent?  800MM?  13.2% of the world's population?  Holy Christ, when have 13.2% of the world's population ever been able to connect with one another directly?  Jesus, that's astonishing.

 

No, anyone with good income can get news from around the world.

 

Again, with 2/3rds of all Americans having internet access, I have to disagree.  You may find some folks who yearn to read international news, and yet have nowhere to go to find it - but that number is unprecedentedly tiny.

 

Besides that, most Americans have no interest in foreign news anyway. We need our domestic news to do its job better.

 

OK, again, would you please outline for me when exactly this was not the case in our history?  Explain again how America used to thrill to tales of foreign news, until Fox News came along and wiped all such interest from their feeble little minds?

 

 

AAARGH! And please, STOP posting then going back and substantially altering your posts!  I spend five or ten minutes responding to something that's now different, and it's really, really frustrating!

 

 

I also feel Americans prefer their own news regardless of how bad it is.

 

Again, can you pinpoint the time when this wasn't the case?

 

There just isn't any excuse for the sad state of journalism in much of America today.

 

I'm sorry, I'm a broken record here, but can you pinpoint the time when this wasn't the case?

 

If I lived in Rwanda the only news I'd give a s*** about is when my next meal is coming.

 

I'm not so sure the internet is necessarily the best form of news right now. Anyone can get a blog and start spreading nonsense. It's almost impossible to find unbias journalism but I think NPR does a pretty good job at it.

So the early 1990's...when there were how many outlets for news?  Four broadcast and one cable?  And now today there are how many outlets for news?  Four broadcast and a dozen cable, plus more if you've got satellite?  When again did CBS buy ABC and NBC?  I must have missed that transaction...frickin' oligarchy snuck it past me.

 

Yeah, I forget when it was that NPR was taken off the air - wasn't that 1997 some time?  Oh, wait, they're still broadcasting - silly me!  Yes, there are folks who don't want the government to fund them (with whom I disagree) - of course, since 2% of their budget comes from the federal government (according to wikipedia), I doubt that, even if they succeeded, it would spell NPR's demise.

 

Regardless, the point is, it ain't happened, and it ain't about to happen.

 

 

Dude, I waited on a phone line for internet news for years.  And you know what?  There's more to the world than just video!  In fact, one can be a pretty well-informed individual without even owning a TV!  Without watching video news!  Honest!

 

Yes, I too wish more folks were informed about the world around them - but the fact that most folks are interested in going to work, spending time with their families, enjoying some time off now and then, and not much beyond that - that's always been the case, and always will be the case.  And that's fine.

 

But to bemoan that fact, and act as though it's something new - that's nuts.  And to pretend that, for those who do want to be informed about the world around them, that there's ever been a time when that's more possible - that's also nuts.

It's almost impossible to find unbias journalism but I think NPR does a pretty good job at it.

 

The only broadcast news source I listen to with any regularity is The Newshour.  Easily the most evenhanded reporting on the tube.

 

For fun op-ed I enjoy The McLaughlin Group (thank you CET!) and Washington Week and the Sunday morning pundit shows.

 

Local newspapers.  Toledo Blade is doing some of the best investigative journalism in Ohio these days.  The Dayton Daily News used to be "OK" (I never considered on par with papers like the old pre-Gannett Louisville Courier Journal or the very newsy Sacramento Bee) but they have apparenlty either a new editor or publisher or both and it really sucks now (yet I don't see them as being as anti-urban as the Enquirer).

 

The Enquirer as a right wing news source for SW Ohio is pretty well known.  They even sell it here in south suburban Dayton for the suburban GOPers who can't take the even somewhat centerist DDN. 

 

The interesting thing about the DDN and the Akron B-J was that they where the start of two media empires...Cox Newspapers and Knight-Ridder.  The B-J was, in its day, a pretty good newspaper, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What the hell happened to my thread?  C-Dawg I thought we warned you to relax on your anti Cincinnati slanted posts?

1) I don't believe television news was ever worth a crap.  If you depend on TV news for your information, you'll be woefully uninformed.  And I believe that's always been true.  Perhaps it's even less nutritious today than it's been in the past, but that's like saying they've sucked even more vitamins out of beer.  You don't drink beer for its nutrition, and you don't watch TV for full-picture news.

 

2) Yes, I've heard of Darfur.  I've followed the story for years and years now.  Let me tell you what story I didn't know much about - the Rwandan genocide.  Because in the summer of 1994, I got most of my news from TV - which means I wasn't getting any news.

 

3) To say there are fewer media outlets available today is just plain wrong.  Sure, fewer companies own local television stations - but television is just one source of news - and it's by far the most inept, incomplete and uninformative source.  Always has been, undoubtedly always will be.

 

4) For someone to defend the plethora of networks owned by General Electric, Viacom, Disney, and Fox is beyond any comprehension.  Point out to me where I defend them, and I'll grovel for forgiveness.  What I've been trying to say is that these companies have arguably taken something useless, and made it even more useless.  But they can't turn off the BBC, Corriere Della Sera, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, the Times of India or Al-Ahram.

 

5) If it weren't for the internet, we'd really be in the dark.  That's like saying, "if it weren't for rain, our crops would really be dry."  The internet is the only way to be able to see different points of view on issues - and it's the first time in history that's been possible!  Do you think someone in 1985 who got his news from Peter Jennings, the local paper and Paul Harvey's radio broadcast was really a well-informed guy?  I'll grant you, maybe he was marginally better informed than someone who does the same thing today, but marginally.

 

The point is, the internet (and to some extent, increased globalization, which allows copies of world newspapers to be sitting in Border's when you walk in this morning) has provided something previously unavailable - actual diversity in news sources.  And it's fantastic.  So to decry TV news not suddenly serving a market it never served before, which market finally can get what it demands - I'm sorry, that's like complaining you can't flip a pancake with a screwdriver.

 

 

The whole thing on people watching more TV doesn't address the point at all.  My point was that most folks have little interest in world news, until it directly impacts Americans.  They never have, and they never will.  Sure, in 1797 that was because they were busy clear-cutting a homestead in western Massachussetts, in 1897 it was because they were riding west in a wagon train, and in 1997 because they were watching TV.  The point is, most folks weren't interested, and those who were spent their lives frustrated with either no news, were lucky and got a four-paragraph excerpt from the AP in the local paper once a week, or they worked for the State Department.

 

Now, all of a sudden, those folks - more than one may have guessed, actually - are devouring news from across the world.

 

And yet, we're more poorly informed?

 

Dude, Where's My Sense Of Perspective?

 

the FCC is now handing out heavier fines than EVER for material it deems "offensive" or "inappropriate." Since when should our government tell us what material is "appropriate?"

 

The fact is, as I'm sure you're probably better aware than I am, the airwaves are owned by the public.  Companies lease those airwaves, and agree to follow certain rules, which rules are established by the people, through the only means they have for setting rules - through their elected representatives.

 

I think most people believe that publically broadcast material ought to conform to some decency standards.  Let me state emphatically, I ain't one of them - but I understand folks who are.  Most folks think the occasional curse word isn't a big deal, but snuff films and porn are.

 

So, who decides where that line is?  Let's keep in mind, this line isn't what material is "appropriate" - this is what material is appropriate for broadcast on publically-owned airwaves.  And if you agree that snuff films and porn ought not be broadcast on publically-owned airwaves (or agree that it isn't an unreasonable position), then you agree there should be rules.  And unless you believe democracy is a poor way for a people to govern themselves, then I guess you'd have to agree that our elected representatives ought to set those rules.  They've chosen to appoint an agency for the purpose of setting guidelines and enforcing those guidelines.  I think the guidelines they've set are stupid, capricious and arbitrary, but I can't argue with the principle that the government ought to set rules.

 

As a policy, I'd rather we let a thousand flowers bloom, and let parents realize what they should already realize - it's a minefield out there, and if you're worried about what the kids watch, then you should be aware of what the kids watch.  But then, I'm not a parent, which might very well change my perspective on that entirely...

 

The sad reality of modern newspaperdom is this: "Report where the money is." Therefore, no matter the market, you'll see five puff pieces on "where to shop" to every "ain't city living grand" story. Also remember the old newsroom chestnut: "If it bleeds, it leads." Reading some of the laments around here, I'd bet OTR has the "bleeds" market fairly well cornered. And here's the saddest news of all: newspapers have always been in the newspaper-selling business; when they were the primary source of news, they could afford to pay for some reporting every now and then. Not so much anymore thanks to competition from the interwebs and the teevee.

 

Captain Obvious, reporting live...

Most folks think the occasional curse word isn't a big deal, but snuff films and porn are.

 

For that, we trust the internet.

 

[EDIT] AND ANOTHER THING... [EDIT]

 

(our elected representatives have chosen to appoint an agency for the purpose of setting guidelines and enforcing those guidelines. I think the guidelines they've set are stupid, capricious and arbitrary, but I can't argue with the principle that the government ought to set rules.

 

Committees of the majority party in congress, along with the president, appoint the rule-setters of the FCC, and it is widely understood that they get their marching orders on morality from a small, but moneyed and powerful, cadre of religious lobbyists. Under present circumstances, and looking at poll after poll, it is widely agreed upon that the president and the congress are taking this country in the wrong direction. True, we elected 'em. But there is a lot of dirty politics behind their success, exactly the type that drives concerned individuals away from the political process, further cementing the political fortunes of those deciding for us what we, the public, will see on the public airwaves.

 

As a policy, I'd rather we let a thousand flowers bloom, and let parents realize what they should already realize - it's a minefield out there, and if you're worried about what the kids watch, then you should be aware of what the kids watch. But then, I'm not a parent, which might very well change my perspective on that entirely...

 

I am a parent, and I accept that it is my responsibility to help my children know what a mine is, let alone where it lies. I neither want, nor need, the assistance of people who pull the strings of the FCC to accomplish this. To me, nothing is more indecent than someone deciding for me what is indecent, and given a choice (which under the current rules of Washington I don't have), I would never, ever look to the Ralph Reeds of the universe for advice on decency.

And here's the saddest news of all: newspapers have always been in the newspaper-selling business; when they were the primary source of news, they could afford to pay for some reporting every now and then.

 

"Newspapers have always been in the newspaper-selling business" - that's actually not the case.  During the early days of the republic, newspapers were largely in the "party organ" business.  Yes, they wanted large distribution - but they were financed by folks interested in supporting this candidate or this party or this camp within this party - not in making money off advertizing or off selling the papers.  I don't know when that changed to the "newspaper-selling business," which it obviously did at some point - but the early history of newspapers in this country was a lot more like the Daily Kos and the Rush Limbaugh show than anything else...

 

During the early days of the republic, newspapers were largely in the "party organ" business.  Yes, they wanted large distribution - but they were financed by folks interested in supporting this candidate or this party or this camp within this party...

 

Then Fox News has brought us full circle, hasn't it.

^Indeed.  Fox News, the internet, talk radio...and I think it's awfully healthy.  As long as folks are aware that any one source is not dependable, that every source has a bias, an agenda, that everyone is selling you something.  That's always been the case, but we haven't always had a million salesmen - we've had a half dozen.  So that half dozen I had access to spent a little more on reporting, had an editor that tried to account for his own bias - well, dandy, thanks!  I'd much rather have one editor at the Plain Dealer, one at the Medina County Gazette, and three networks deciding what I need to know!  That was such a better system, because they were focused on being unbiased, don't you see!

 

 

^Indeed.  Fox News, the internet, talk radio...and I think it's awfully healthy.  As long as folks are aware that any one source is not dependable, that every source has a bias, an agenda, that everyone is selling you something.  That's always been the case, but we haven't always had a million salesmen - we've had a half dozen.  So that half dozen I had access to spent a little more on reporting, had an editor that tried to account for his own bias - well, dandy, thanks!  I'd much rather have one editor at the Plain Dealer, one at the Medina County Gazette, and three networks deciding what I need to know!  That was such a better system, because they were focused on being unbiased, don't you see!

 

The diffusion of broadcast (and narrowcast) news forces would be a lot healthier if there were actual analysis of news going on. There is some out there, but it's only found in a handful of places, most of them print media.

 

The trouble with the blogosphere is apparent with one visit to a Daily Kos or a Newsmax: they only link readers to other like-minded blogs, and looking at the message boards, it's a rarity to see honest, open and reasoned discussion involving opposing points of view. This creates a "Clan of Thought" (trademark pending) mentality that is not so much dangerous as it is a complete waste of time and energy. These are people ticky-tackying away at their computers about what somebody else blogged about what so-and-so in Washington is doing when there are real issues right outside their window in their own community that they are more readily-empowered to change, and quite frankly, could benefit from their energy (but that's another rant entirely).

 

I think the frailties of modern media--especially the 24-hour cable news channels--were identified by Steven Colbert in an interview he did with Terry Gross on Fresh Air. He noted that what passes for analysis on the cable stations is letting two people from opposite sides of an issue rant and rave and then prevailing upon the viewer to sort it all out. It makes good for entertainment, but for lousy news analysis. Colbert also pointed to the fact that The Daily Show, while admittedly a "fake news show," probably subjects the news to heavier-duty analysis than any other cable news show. Put another way, in order to joke about the news, you first have to understand it.

 

In a way, I think it was better when there were fewer news outlets. There was more competition for jobs, actual journalistic training was a pre-requisite, and each outlet was under more scrutiny from the public. Sure the blogosphere has created a world where maverick outsider citizen-journalists like Jeff Gannon can have their slice of the pie while actual reporters can roam the streets. But more than likely, the actual reporters don't have a newsroom to go back to.

No doubt, the situation could be healthier.  But we should bear in mind that the internet is still in its infancy.  And if you read intelligent people writing at length about fields in which they're experts, I think the analysis you get is far, far superior - especially when you bear their biases in mind.  For instance, the law prof blogs are an incomparably superior source of analysis of legal issues than a 3 minute recap of arguments by Nina Totenberg (whom I dig).  They have extended debates between blogs, are generally very civil, remarkably informative, and very open to opposing points of view.  I've never seen legal analysis remotely superior to The Volokh Conspiracy in any old-school media.  And the same is true in many other fields - science, military, medicine...

 

Politics has always been and will always be packed to the gills with screeching fearbots.  I can't stand cable news shows for exactly the reasons you outlined.  But there are lots of sites out there that give thoughtful, if partisan, analysis to politics.  It's harder to find them, but they're out there, they develop thoughts and arguments in long form - and there are no filters.

 

And just as important, instead of getting a cut from Bush's speech, you can read the whole transcript.  Instead of hearing a characterization of Kerry's proposals for Iraq, you can read them and digest them yourself.  And you can fact-check them, and discuss them with others.

 

My basic point is, if you read a variety of sources, understand some basic history and some basic science and some basic statistics, and then think for yourself, you'll be well-informed.  That hasn't changed.  The only thing that's changed is that today, the "variety of sources" has exploded, from typically a half-dozen, to millions.  That doesn't mean you don't still need to understand history, science and statistics, and be able to think for yourself - of course not.  But it seems like we're blaming the absence of the latter qualifications on some shortcomings of the first qualification, and that just doesn't make sense to me.

 

^I disagree with almost nothing you have to say, and that is an internet first.

 

The only thing that's changed is that today, the "variety of sources" has exploded, from typically a half-dozen, to millions.

 

And each source more questionable than the last.

 

But really, I do love the internet with all my heart. I think it has come closer to bringing the world to an unprecedented level of interconnectivity. Plus, it's great to know movie times. It's the whole "with great power comes great responsibility" thing that we must grapple with, and the internet plays nicely to our natural penchant for irresponsibility.

 

I can't even imagine the temptation for plagarism facing kids writing school reports today. Anybody here remember researching a paper using card catalogs, microfiche and the index of periodical literature? Back then we didn't have time to cheat.

 

(Hops aboard his Stanley Steamer and roars off)

Regarding the FCC: I completely agree that its rules, its reach and its oversight are examples of poor policies poorly executed.  All I'm saying is that, assuming there ought to be some rules (and while I pretty much disagree with that, I don't think it's an unreasonable position), someone's gotta set them.  And the best place to have those rules set are by the people, through their elected representatives...I wish they did a better job at it, but as they say, democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others.

 

Like I said, we have FEWER salesmen (media owners) today than ten years ago- they're just selling more of the same thing.

 

I've listed a dozen foreign newspapers I have 24/7 free access to (which list doesn't begin to scratch the surface), and you still keep telling me I have fewer voices available to me than I did when we got the Medina County Gazette, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, WWWE, WHK, and channels 3, 5 and 8.  Somewhere, C-Dawg, we're having a failure to communicate.

 

I suspect the root cause of our argument here is that you believe TV news was a good source of information until it was corrupted by sinister, evil men in the late 1990's; I believe TV news has never been worth a squirt of piss, except for its flashy pictures and its immediacy.  I believe radio's always been a better medium, since it's generally more long-form and more word-o-centric (sorry, couldn't come up with the right word) - but that it's still a single speaker at a time, temporal, impossible to analyze at length, and filtered through editors, business owners and sponsors.  I believe newspapers are by far the best source of those three - but even in their heyday, even at their very best, they were only subject to internal fact-checking (an almost funny proposition, if skew and bias is the concern), they've always served some non-news purpose, and they've always filtered through an editor's desk.  Yes, they'll tell you where the fire was; but in choosing what stories to run, what prominence to give them, what reporters to assign to what stories, what editorials to run - you could spend twenty years and have all those decisions made for you by the same set of a dozen white guys.  This was the good old days?  This was some noble apex of journalistic quality?  Really?

 

One thing has me worried however- how long can the "no filters" concept last? There are lots of people in this country (including many in high power positions) who would prefer a censored internet arguing its currently "dirty, sex-ridden, offensive, vulgar, innapropriate for young childern." Will our politicians cave into these interests or will they stand on the principle of free speech/press?

 

I believe the answer is that no, our politicians will not cave into those interests, because they wouldn't want to, and because the pressure against it would be far too strong...but then, I am generally an optimist...

 

What also has me worried is that even some highly "educated" people are incredibly ignorant of the world around them and buy into hate. How the hell can someone like Ann Coulter, with relentless hatred towards minorities and "liberals", be a best-selling author and a news analyst?

 

The fact that educated people can become the most spectacular morons is nothing new.  Just because you know a lot of stuff doesn't mean you're actually thinking.  Hell, a lot of the cultural elite in Europe thought Nazism was a brilliant new philosophy, and believed democracy to be a failed experiment - the world needed bold dictators, like Mussolini and Hitler and Stalin...smart people can be really, really stupid, or really, really impractical, or really, really heartless...again, unfortunately, it's nothing new...

 

I guess I'm just sad/upset over the wasted medium that is television news. It had so much potential...

 

No doubt...and it still has that potential - hopefully someone will still find the right formula, the right implementation.  But in the end, being well-informed has got to be the responsibility of the citizen...and for the first time in history, the citizen actually has the tools at his disposal to do exactly that...

 

Wait, hold on a second...wha...?  C-Dawg, we just went knock-down drag-out for two pages, and ended up basically hashing things out?  This is the internet, that ain't supposed to happen!  We're supposed to degrade into a flame-war, not see each other's points of view!

 

I feel another hug coming on.

I think The Toledo Blade is quite a bit ahead of the other newspapers in Ohio (as glaringly exhibited by Coingate), but I think you might be going a little too hard on the Dayton Daily News. Does it have the investigative journalism of The Blade? No. But is it a fairly unbiased newspaper that isn't trying to kill the city? I'd say so. That's being light years ahead of some other papers in this state.

 

I've never really had a problem with the Dayton Daily News and their coverage of new, but since their makeover this spring I have not been happy with their new format.  It might as well be called USA Today-Dayton Edition.  It seems like the stories have been dumbed down, all articles shortened (they no longer continue articles to another page...so if it is a big story, I have to read multiple short articles about the same subject), more regurgitating stories that have already been reported earlier in the week, more of a focus on quick snipits, etc.  In my opinion, they have gone in the wrong direction with their recent changes.

Perhaps the problem is that Cincinnati just isn't up to par with Columbus. (I'm only somewhat j/king  :lol: )

 

Capital ideas

Columbus is full of sights for Buckeyes to behold

PAMA MITCHELL | ENQUIRER CONTRIBUTOR

 

Until a recent visit, my knowledge about Columbus started with its status as our state's capital and pretty much wrapped up with the fact that the city is home to Ohio State University.

 

But within or adjoining the central city are activities that range from trendy to educational, whimsical to sophisticated.

 

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060818/LIFE09/608180337/1025/LIFE

The Dayton Daily News has done investigative journalism in the past...I recall they won a Pulitizer for a series they did back in the early 1990s (don't recall the topic).  I think the paper was into some sort of "civic journalism" when Brad Tillson was editor, too, as he was a big proponent of regionalism on the op-ed page.

 

 

 

From wikipedia:

 

In 1998 reporters Russell Carollo and Jeff Nesmith would win the Pulitzer Prize for their reporting on dangerous flaws and mismanagement in the military health care system, a series very relevant to its readership because of the presence of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in neighboring Greene County.

As an avid reader of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, I'm not suprised that the Toledo Blade is of such high quality.  It seems to win many awards.

Must be a slow day for them:

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060823/SPT/608230348/-1/rss

^^ 13 months later, you can read the Dispatch online for free now.  :clap:

 

Go to the downtown library. They're the best archive for the Cincinnati Enquirer. ;]

Its starting to get awfully disgusting!!!  I went on the Enquirer's website to see what news there was in Cincinnati today, and I believe that out of the entire paper there were only a handful of articles about the city itself (even Hamilton County).

 

Almost every damn article I went through was for Butler County this....Warren County that.....Nky, etc!!  I couldn't believe it.  One Headline read something along the lines of 'Downtown looking for artists to fill empty storefronts'.  I was intrigued to say the least......then I opened the article and it was for Middletown!?!?!?!?!?!  No offense to Middletown, but when you say downtown in a headline without mentioning a city name.....then its CINCINNATI.  This is the CINCINNATI metropolitan region, NOT Middletown!!!!

 

The Enquirer better start getting these things right SOON!  I am one of their rare young subscribers, and I will quickly quit subscribing and visiting their site all together, if this shit continues!!!

 

THIS IS CINCINNATI.....DON'T FORGET THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL.

 

Downtown, as in a downtown, it has nothing to do with Cincinnati or Middletown.

 

Headlines read like that. If you read "Mother eats spinach with ecoli" do you assume its your mother? Or "Cats die in heat streak," would you assume its the Bearcats?

 

Sounds like wining to me. ;)

^ Disagree, Rando makes a good point.  This is suppose to be Cincinnati's paper and when you say, "downtown" it is a given which downtown they are taking about.  This isn't the first time I have seen the Enquirer post bogus headlines like the one quoted above.

 

I do think the Enquirer sucks but today there were a million articles about downtown, the arts, the bengals, etc.

inkaelin, stay focused...  Your rants make no sense sometimes.  You totally missed the point.  Cincinnati is the center city, the paper is named after the city.  When you say "downtown" it is assumed that the topic is about "downtown" as in the Central Business District of Cincinnati. That is all, don't bring other garbage into the discussion.

He's not saying Cincy is the only downtown - the only point is that if the article says "downtown" without specifying which downtown, which one are you going to assume?  When it's the Cincinnati Enquirer?  Are you going to assume, "obviously, they're talking about downtown Glendale," or "obviously, they're talking about downtown Ft. Wright"?

 

No.  Obviously not.  Ain't one downtown in this metro, there are a multitude.  But if you're the Cincinnati Enquirer and you say "downtown" without qualification, can you tell me which of the scores of downtowns in the metro one would assume you're referring to?

^ I think it depends on which section of the newspaper it is in.

I think the point is that it's obviously ambiguously poor writing - I mean, even if it's in the Warren County edition, which "downtown" do they mean? - and that it's emblematic of the paper's disregard for anything city-related.

 

I don't think anyone's arguing, "if only the Enquirer would indicate, of the dozens of downtowns we have in the Cincinnati metro, which they're referring to - that would make the paper a flawless companion to their city!"  I think the argument is, the Enquirer has a major anti-city bias, and that this is yet another example of it.

 

Dude, the Enquirer despises the city.  The fact that they don't reserve an unspecified "downtown" label for the city is an example of that.  What part aren't you getting?

 

And I was giving an example.  But please, let's say it's a Warren County edition of the paper, and they refer to "downtown."  Which downtown do you think they'd be referring to?

It makes sense that they'd provide news according to the areas where there is a significant amount of readership but it still feels like they're way too pessimistic about the inner city.

Cincinnati Enquirer is so awful that I kind of wish I had a subscription to it just so I could cancel it! 

The Enquirer hates the city of cincinnati. 

Classy move Enquirer!

 

Readers complain about juror names

CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

February 22, 2007

 

CINCINNATI - Dozens of readers called The Enquirer on Thursday to complain that the newspaper published names of the jurors in the Liz Carroll case once the trial was over and the information became public.

 

Editor and vice president Tom Callinan said more than 30 readers canceled their subscriptions.

 

"Of course we don't routinely report this level of detail, but the overriding public interest in this case caused us to consider a rare exception," Callinan said.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070223/NEWS01/702230383/1056/COL02

^That really sucks... jurors should have a right to privacy so they won't be influenced by concern over how the public will react to their verdict.

I suggest someone type in Mr. Callinan's name in zabbasearch.com and post a nice aerial photo and address to his Blue Ash house and see if he likes it?  I saw this and couldn't believe that the Enquirer would pull a stunt like that.

I get it all for free - even the pay sites. If you have a university account, you can use Access World News (Newsbank) and do searches :)

If I won $100 million in the Powerball lottery I would buy the Post and run the shitty Enquirer out of business.  What an embarrassment to our beautiful city.

Sh!t if I won $100 million I would fill the financing gap on the Banks and have them name a park after me or something.

^ If you won a $100 million dollars you could do both :)

I'd build my own streetcar line. 

The Cincinnati Enquirer merely thinks of themselves as a business rather than a news source.  They don't necessarily print the news; they print what they think the subscribers want.  Here is an example:

 

Earlier today, I went to the XU women's basketball game.  I was sitting in the front row behind the press table.  Two reporters from the Enquirer were seated behind me.  Now I know there are a lot of UC fans here, but bear with me.  A man behind me mentioned how Xavier finally got on the front page of the sports section with the win against Dayton yesterday.  He told the guys from the Enquirer that he was happy with this.  He also  mentioned that sometimes XU will have a huge win on the same night that UC may have lost a game, but UC will still get the bigger headline.  The guy from the Enquirer said that it does not matter what UC does in sports.  They will always have the bigger headlines even if they would go a season without winning any games.  This is because they are a business, and they publish what they think people want to read. 

 

I know this was regarding sports team, but this philosophy is apparent throughout their newspaper.  The Enquirer as a source for news does not seem to be important to them.  Their first priority is as a business publishing what they feel their subscribers want.  I know many people have suspected this, but I was still a little shocked to hear one of their employees actually say this.

Thanks for sharing XU.