>Just out of curiosity:
>1. What percentage of the entire u.s. electorate (not to speak of the other half of the population) reads as much as the headlines on the front page of the NYT?
>2. hat percentage of the entire u.s. electorate (not to speak of the other half of the population) reads as much as the headlines on the front page of _any_ newspaper?
>I would think that newspapers make a difference, if they do make a difference, only collectively, over a considerable amount of time, on general response to the world, but make no difference whatever on specific issues on a specific occasion. It would be interesting to try to formulate The Message which u.s. papers, collectively, over periods of years or decades, issue. That formulation would be the answer to the question, "What difference do newspapers make?"
My 2 cents:
> Chomsky has been warring with the NYT for decades, but he still reads it religiously. Carrol seems to be saying the Times, and newspapers in general, likely have no (positive?) influence or effect because they don't reach the masses.
I did use the qualifier "seems", but I guess I misinterpreted what you said. I took it that you were thinking that what the Times (or newspapers in general) covers and doesnt cover, what they discuss in their pages and dont discuss, doesnt really have any effect on specific issues, OR, really, much effect on anything, except in the long collective term. Because you also made the point that most of the population doesnt read newspapers very much, let alone the NYT, I thought you were specifically talking about what difference newspapers make *on the masses*. That's not my point. What hard news *most* people get comes from TV. Now TV news has historically been influenced by the papers of record also...but that influence has been weakening *because the interest TV news has in hard, investigative news has been weakening*. Hell, it's just about vanished at this point, regarding commercial networks/channels. This is driven largely by financial interest and need.
Based on my own experience working in the media, I agree that what the papers of record: NYT, WP, & WSJ -- are printing has historically had a real impact on elite opinion, and a *very great* influence on what goes on in the rest of the media info universe. Sometimes in looking to them to set agendas--sometimes in reaction against the same. Being from the Midwest, I can tell you some papers in the rock-ribbed Republican heartland take a NYT endorsement as a cue to do the opposite, so as not to agree with the all-mighty NYT.
The papers of record *do* still have an agenda-setting role. But, granted, not like it used to be.
Maria