Media’s Partisan Hackery Continues To Consign It To Irrelevance

This is now the role of the legacy news media: A disheveled old man on the porch of the retirement home, screaming for everyone to shut up.

For several decades of the twentieth century, no one hoping to win the presidency could ignore the Saturday Evening Post. With a circulation in the millions, it was the signpost for a Protestant, small-town, print-focused America.

Then television began to draw the public’s attention, and the Walter Cronkites of the world began to cut into the magazine’s influence. As the 1950s and 1960s brought ugly social schisms to the forefront of American culture, the conservative tone and focus of the Post began to feel quaint. By the opening of the 1970s, it was all but dead, struggling on as a little-noticed artifact of an earlier age.

  • Clausewitz

    The NYT’s is a corpse that doesn’t know it’s dead yet.

    • Hard Little Machine

      The Times’ majority owner is Carlos Slim, one of the richest men on the planet and advocate for sending as many of the Mexicans in Mexico where he lives to the US. He could and will run the Times at a loss forever if it suits him. Many leftwing blogs and websites like Salon and Politico are run as vanity projects by or two very wealthy people to promote their personal point of view. Does anyone think that Jeff Bezos is worried if his WaPo doesn’t make money? MSNBC and CNN ratings have been on their death beds for years. Its doesn’t matter – liberals keep shoveling money into them. That’s really what was so surprising about al Jazeera America’s demise. They could have run it with zero income for the next 40 years if they wanted to. They could have run it like CCTV China with NO advertising and no ratings for decades. That they bailed leads me to believe they don’t really understand American media.

      • dance…dancetotheradio

        That reminds me of my question about the CBC, it’s subsidy and mandatory carriage.
        On one side of the graph you have the CBC providing a service that a hundred percent of the people watch, providing the highest value for the money we all spend on it. (Yeah, yeah, bear with me.)
        On the other side of the graph you have the CBC with only one viewer watching a service that costs over a billion dollars a year.
        Is it really worth spending that money to keep one person happy?
        If you say no then you have to ask at what level of viewership does the justification for the CBC existing no longer make practical sense.
        And then it follows that if the CBC had exactly zero viewers would the government continue to fund them as a make work project for otherwise unemployable media personalities?