By: E&P Staff
In today’s letters, a reader complains the there isn’t enough coverage of the Valerie Plame/CIA leak trial in the media, amazement that Rupert Murdoch would call the New York Times biased, and a response to Arthur Sulzberger’s recent comments on the future of printed newspapers.
Media Not Covering Libby Trial Enough?
I absolutely LOVE Editor and Publisher but I feel it is truly pathetic and sad that your publication and others are relying on Firedoglake for coverage of the Libby trial. Why does this very important trial merit such little coverage across the board from the media? It is a fascinating plot, every bit as interesting as the O.J. trial. The public would eat this up if the media would just cover it.
I’m also appalled that Tim Russert admitted that he has absolutely no journalistic ethics whatsoever. NOTHING is on the record with him, therefore he BECOMES PART OF THE STORY HE ALLEGES TO COVER. He was a shameful and willing pawn in the drumbeat to this horrible, illegal and immoral invasion … Iraq. This should be the number one headline on every paper in the country. “D.C. bureau chief of one of the largest news networks in the country admits hiding news from the public to protect his salary and so he can play with the big boys.”
I’m sick. Thanks for listening. I really love your stuff and Greg Mitchell rocks. I know you are all sick over this too. Editor and Publisher has integrity.
Rupert Murdoch — who owns News Corp., FOX News, and the New York Post, all of which are far right propaganda outlets — has the gall, the nerve, and the chutzpah to call the New York Times biased? Wow!! Pot meet kettle. Talk about throwing stones in one’s glass house!!
FOX News is 24/7 right wing garbage — Hannity to O’Reilly to Gibson to Hume. It’s non-stop propaganda from and for the right wing. And Murdoch calls anyone else in the media biased? He needs to clean his own house first.
Bush’s Budget and Solving Problems With Bombs
While I admire [Joseph Galloway’s] attempts to bring the Bush administration’s financial irresponsibility — no, criminality is more accurate — I have to point out that his assertion is incomplete.
Because the $12 billion Joe is talking about is petty cash compared to the more than $3 TRILLION that the Pentagon cannot account for, despite more than a decade of employing outside accounting firms to supplement the Pentagon’s own accounting efforts.
I’ve worked in social services for more than three decades, and I am appalled when I think about the amount of human suffering that amount of money might have helped alleviate. Instead of that, our national treasure has been mostly used to cause more suffering, through our apparent belief that there are no problems that cannot be solved by the use of bombs.
Mt. Shasta, Calif.
On Sulzberger and the Future of Printed Newspapers
As a 25-year newspaper professional, I was astounded by Arthur Sulzberger Jr.’s comments about the future of printed newspapers. As the Publisher of a publicly traded company, his comments were not only irresponsible but incredibly short-sighted.
While some newspapers continue to keep their heads stuck in the sand, denying the inevitable transition they will need to go through to survive. Arthur goes the other direction and says he does not care if they are printing a newspaper in five years. Considering 95 percent of the New York Times’ revenue probably is from the printed version, if I were a stockholder I would immediately cut my losses and sell.
Anybody with a newspaper background understands the survival of newspapers will depend upon their local news and advertising gathering ability. However the printed product will remain, now not as the center price, but as one component a newspaper?s portfolio.
A visionary, Arthur is not.