Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> By NYT standards, this is a very decent editorial. Now if they could only
> put this on the first page where it belonged, there might be hope for
> American journalism. But of course there's the rub: they can't.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html
>
> Which is a large part of why the bill will pass -- because w/o this on the
> front page, all the reams of coverage are worse than white noise -- they're
> normalizing white noise, legitimizing white noise.
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?"
Carrol