THURSDAY'S LETTERS: FAS-FAX Circ Drop Related to Newspaper Bias?, Moyers' Special on Press and Iraq

By: E&P Staff In today's letters, readers react to news that the latest FAS-FAX report will show a continued decline in circulation for newspapers, others weigh in on Bill Moyers' report on the press' role in the leadup to the Iraq War.

***

Latest Report to Show Declining Circulation

I enjoyed your article and found it to be very informative. However, you failed to mention one thing, most of these declining papers are left-leaning rags. It seems to coincide with viewership of MSNBC and CNN as compared to Fox News.

One day, these newspapers and cable news outlets will understand we are not all liberals, and we don't all agree with their views and opinions. Personally, I just want factual news with NO political slant at all.

Charles Hubbard



Who wants to read all the left-wing hate-America "All the news that's fit to invent" anymore?

R. Zoppo



Do you suppose the drive-by media heads will ever figure out that the American people are just plain fed up with the lies and left-wing distortions being fed them?

I think we are issuing a collective "We don't believe you anymore and will not pay for the tripe you print!"

I consider the New York Times still to be the finest newspaper in the world but I cringe at the left wing editorial page and the stories of deceit by its publisher and editors. We are not all stupid, dumbed down products of the government schools turned into good little Marxists!

L. K. Weber
USN Retired



So circulation for most (not all) papers seems to be dropping. Has anybody looked at the mortality rate of their readers. I suspect that those people most use to getting and reading a daily paper are older in age and grew up reading print news.

While not young, nor ancient, I grew up reading papers because that was where the information was. And what was available. That was then, now the information is on the internet, so who needs a paper?

Papers tell me history ... what happened yesterday. The Internet tells me what is happening now -- or at least within the last few hours. Comics, movies, sports and sale ads are readily available via computer. And if I need local sales information the weekly throw aways that come in the mail are more than adequate.

Is there a place for newspapers? Yes. However, its' place has shrunk drastically and if you think a growing population is going to bring the numbers up again, then the industry is living in the past.

And as the "greatest generation" passes from the scene I suspect that the numbers will shrink even more.

R. P. Fredette

***

Moyers Weighs in on the Press and Iraq


I much enjoyed your Bill Moyers report "Probe of Press and Iraq." Thank you very much. And I recommend you keep Mr. Moyers as perhaps one of the few true Investigative Reporters (along with the KR journalists) still left.

I wonder if the administration is planning an expansion into Iran this year as well and hope the news media in this country can report real facts and not just the administration lies of Cheney-DOD-NeoCons .

Again, great report.

Charles N. Pegelow
Houston, Texas



Quote: "We cannot wait for the final proof: the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

It looks like the media is making the very same mistake with the Global Warming hype.

V. Miller
Texarkana, Texas



Now we know how willing most of the media were to accept and publish the Bush administration's "facts" leading up to the war. But how much has changed? Right now the media have almost universally adopted the administration's newest attempt to frame the discussion with a misleading term: "the surge."

A great word, isn't it? Suggesting decisive action, power, and, best of all, short duration. But why isn't it just another escalation (as a few media outlets initially tried to point out)? Why isn't the media demanding that the administration define how this strategy differs from its earlier (failed) attempts to "clear and hold"? Why isn't the media insisting the administration explain how a "surge" can start slowly (while we agonizingly move troops into place over a period of months) and have no defined end point? And why, if it's such a promising new strategy, did it take four years to come up with it? There's no surge in surge, so why aren't the media pointing that out?

Jon Talbot