I like the DN a lot too. It's certainly a tabloid paper, but I like tabloid papers. Good crime coverage, generally, and much superior to the Inquirer, arguably the worst big-city newspaper in America.

As for the column, well, I personally am not attracted to this embracing of loser-dom, but each his/her own. While I understand the original poster's point, there's nothing really unusual about anything there.

tmcgee

I bet the poster is Michael Smearconish. That dude is annoying. :lol:

Thanks for understanding my point, TMcGee, and I agree with you that there is really not much all that unusual. The Daily News is full of coarse language and crude analysis, but I guess if you wish to appeal to t e lowest common denominator that is the way to go.

The Inquirer is much more to my taste in its style but unfortunately has become so politically skewed and blatantly biased it is difficult to even regard news reporting as a good faith effort on the part of the publisher. Like Dan Rather, the Inquirer has lost considerable credibility.

I understand the The Evening Bulletin might be making a comeback. I would hope it to be a decent middle of the road publication.

Just wondering talkradiobug, how do you feel about Foxnews ? Should Bill O'riely lose his job for reporting everything with a rightwing slant ?
Has he or that news channel lost creditablity with you as well ?

talkradiobug is a hanity/rush guy/girl.

He's only objecting to the column because he disagrees with its politics. And he lauds Mr. McGee because Mr. McGee would also disagree with the politics.

And, Fergie, you know that talkradiobug looooooooooovvvvvvveeeees Fox News.

__________________
“Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” - Jane Jacobs

Well there's a standard Bulletin joke among media buffs that a statistical analysis of Bulletin editorials found the most frequently occuring phrase was "on the other hand."

But where did you hear of a Bulletin comeback attempt? That seems highly unlikely in today's shrinking newpaper market. Both the Daily News and the Inky have been unable to stop the continual erosion of daily circulation that has been ongoing for decades. That erosion of readership was underway in most American cities even before the Internet became the next big thing.

With competing newspapers there's a tipping point in advertising revenue; if one paper has 55% of total daily circulation and the other 45%, the lion's share of ad revenue, far out of proportion to circulation share, will go to the leader.

Producing and distributing a daily paper requires an immense investment in physical plant and distribution facilities. The two major weeklies in Philly are printed under contract on the same presses that produce the two dailies; it's not likely PNI would be interested in printing a daily competitor.

Personally, I'd love to see the triumphant return of the Bulletin and everybody reading at least one daily paper. In a previous life, I hawked newspapers at a large newsstand for over four years, before going broke opening my own mini-newsstand in front of the Curtis Center on Washington Square (in 1987, during the Constitution Bicentennial). Funny side note to that - the owners of the then newly renovated Curtis building, joined by the National Park Service, fought the issuance of my newsstand license before the L&I Review Board, partly on the grounds that it was inappropriate for the historic area. Never mind that Washington Square had once been a great center of the publishing industry in America. Fools unleashed three lawyers from Wolf Block on me. Kicked their arses with a little pro bono help. %-)

Cheers,
Jayfar (formerly Newsy Jay)
--
Fight Ignorance - READ!

Newsie: great little tale.

I'm trying to clear my work befogged brain cells. I know the Bulletin was the establishment paper, a family owned news juggernaut edited by George Packard. The Inquirer and the DN were the outsider owned (KR) upstarts.

But, wasn't the Bulletin also the more liberal of the two - ie before Gene Roberts took over at the Inquirer.

By the way, an interesting piece on Gene Roberts at the Inquirer is over at Poynter.

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=34&aid=2537

__________________
“Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” - Jane Jacobs

As a matter of fact Fergie and Crissayer I do prefer Fox News over CNN, PBS, and the three major networks. I prefer C-SPAN over Fox News.

And no, O'Reilly should not lose his job. He is a commentator, a pundit, a presenter of opinion, not a presenter of what one would hope to be factual presentation of news . On the other hand I would be delighted to see Dan Rather lose his job. He supposedly is a journalist yet has seen fit to knowingly present untrue news for political reasons.

I do not care for Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh if that makes you feel any better.

I do not care for Ann Coulter's style.

And rest assured that I am no admirer if Michael Moore or Al Franken.

Any more questions of me?

Hey, were just kiddin:

But maybe Bill O'Reilly should lose his job because he's a perverted little man who uses falafal to sexually harass his subordinates.

__________________
“Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” - Jane Jacobs

And Newsie Jay:

Here's a neat little section from a Washington Press Club interview with Marjorie Paxson, who was a feminist in the 60s and hired on as Women's Page Editor at the Bulletin:

http://www.press.org/wpforal/pax3.htm

__________________
“Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” - Jane Jacobs