Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>Joanna:
>
>
>Politically, it's not necessarily bad cause, at least around here, all
>the local free papers are way to the left of the major dailies.
>
>
>[WS:] It's bad, Joanna, pretty bad, because it signifies further dumbing
>down of the US society. The trend is only among more respectable
>newspapers, while tabloids are on the rise. I do not know about you, but
>I'd rather have a serious, respectable newspaper expressing views that I
>find disagreeable than a "politically correct" tabloid. Tabloids (and
>pictorial media in general) tend to appeal mainly to ignorant and indolent
>people who are easily manipulated by sensationalism and demagoguery.
>
No, Woj. Most people don't read the NYT or the Washington Post or the LA
Times. They just don't
I'm not sure I understand about "tabloids" -- in the bay area, the free
weekly papers do 99% of all the muckraking journalism there is to be had
in any paper -- and the approach is more scholarly than
sensationalistic. But, of course, that's the Bay area. I'm willing to
admit I live in a bubble.
>It looks like this society is heading toward a medieval model with a few
>highly educated and literate monks or Brahmins and illiterate masses whose
>main if not only means of written communication is pictures.
>
No question about that, but I'm not so sure that newspapers are as
helpful as you make them out to be.
Joanna
>
>