Comments on: Why journalists deserve low pay

By: Sarah

Sarah — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:29:35 +0000

I am a journalism student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and I find all of this to be horribly inaccurate. Journalists provide a service that the general public is not interested in doing. We get paid to do the research and compile all of the information into articles so that the public does not need to waste their time looking for anything. Also, maybe it is true that some journalists are unethical these days, but our school shoves ethics down our throats in every class. So maybe give journalism a couple years…I feel that the media will be making a huge change soon as younger people make their way into the career field.

By: David

David — Fri, 22 May 2009 01:48:40 +0000

Well, Ryan is half Hispanic. Steve and VDARE stand in the way of AztlÃ¡n. Put two and two together. By the way, stereotypes are never true.

By: Vito

Vito — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:00:50 +0000

Sailer can be prejudicial but he does make some good points. He doesnt support any kind of nude negro law, so I would call him a white supremacist. On the other hand he has made some questionable comments.

By: recovering liberal

recovering liberal — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:10:59 +0000

I guess you can tell Sailer is a white supremacist by the way he writes about superior East Asian and Jewish IQ.

By: Rex May

Rex May — Thu, 21 May 2009 10:37:25 +0000

Steve Sailer is one of the most insightful and articulate voices on the web. Referring to him as a ‘White Supremacist’ is way out of line.

By: The Lost Cause

The Lost Cause — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:07:49 +0000

Byzantine:
You speak heap big truth about Ryan and Sailer.

Quite sad, inasmuch as Mises has been savaged by the $PLC (or does the $ offend you, RM). Ryan is the Mark Potok of LRC. Calling a Dodger and Laker fan Angeleno like Steve a “Creepy white supremacist” is an utter joke. After all, what does Sailer do but write truthfully about race? He may be the only person in Amerika who is doing so right now. Apparently, for Ryan, having even one person write truthfully about race is unspeakable. The political correctness boggles the mind. It would be sad to think that all Mises writers signed on to this kind of nonsense. DiLorenzo clearly doesn’t. But then, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen Gail Jarvis and Steven Yates on LRC

Sailer’s latest contribution today on takimag.com is, as usual, brilliant, and gets to the heart of some very interesting truths that elude people like RM who apparently want nary a negative word spokes about affirmative action and quotas.

Sailer’s biography of Obama was, needless to say, monumental, and I think in future years it will be an important reference work. By then, Ryan will be suggesting many of us (most of whom worked hard hours on behalf of Ron Paul) are good candidates for the FEMA camps, agreed?

Questions, comments?

By: Eric Parks

Eric Parks — Wed, 20 May 2009 02:48:21 +0000

Swinton properly described journalists as “intellectual prostitutes”. They have been instrumental to the powered elites for a very long time as indispensable tools for disseminating the national meme. There are laws which grant favored status to most businesses in the country, therefore I think it natural to assume that more of those types of laws will be passed in short order to protect journalistic endeavors from the blogging community.

By: DJF

DJF — Wed, 20 May 2009 00:09:05 +0000

Much of what is in the newspapers is just rewritten press releases put out by government, business, academia, or various advocacy groups. With the internet many of those groups can just put their own press releases out directly to the public. This has the advantage that those groups can say exactly what they want without filtering while the public is getting information which they know is from the point of view of those groups and is not pretending to be “independentâ€.

The newspapers got a premium in money because they owned the expensive presses and distribution networks which allowed them to be gatekeepers of information. With the internet that gatekeeper function has been greatly reduced along with the money they can charge. The newspapers still have name recognition, access to sources, and experienced reporters but these are legacy assets which will fade if they don’t provide the public with what the public wants.

Part of the fading of newspapers legacy assets will be the availability of more and more raw and processed information on the internet which will mean that anyone can get access to information that previously only could be accessed with the right connections. Whether or not the newspapers and other present media can turn their present positions of exclusive information providers based on ownership of large presses or transmitting towers into a new system of providing information in a form people want in an information flooded world is up to them. They still have the lead but they need to realize that they have lost a lot of their gatekeeper status and with that loss they can’t live off their old gatekeeper premium for long

By: Gil

Gil — Tue, 19 May 2009 19:39:21 +0000

And it wrong to debate how much CEOs get paid? How exactly? So, newspapers are slowly but surely going to go belly-up as soon as those who get their news on-line outnumber those who get their news in the newspapers. Everyone knows that newspapers make their money from selling ad space. So as soon as businesses realise it’s better to advertise on-line instead of newspapers then it all over. The problem of whether newspapers try to go to government and argue they need to be subsidised because they provide a ‘unique valuable service’ that no one else can provide is something else.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Tue, 19 May 2009 19:17:10 +0000

This neither this article nor the referenced one addresses another source of value for media outlets: integrity, and reliability. It used to be that the news would not publish stories without sources, or cross checking facts, leading them to produce stories that were more likely to be true.

However, recently the requirement to “break news first” has removed all needs to question the sources or double check facts. There is still the question of how reliable and factual a website is, when operated by an unknown person. However, newspapers have put themselves in the same position when time after time they’ve published stories based on sensationalism, and not integrity.

By: Brent

Brent — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:29:06 +0000

Yeah, I have only read the local rags online for the last few years, but lately, I have been busier and have realized that they provide no value whatsoever. I do not miss reading them in the slightest, since it seems good local bloggers usually beat the newspaper to the scoop (if only because the newspaper is “holding” a story).

By: Jay Greathouse

Jay Greathouse — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:13:05 +0000

Once upon a time the newspapers provided useful services for those who produced raw materials and created new wealth. But those were local newspapers in touch with productive communities that were not beyond calling politicians and corporations to task.

Now the newspapers only provide services for those who have impoverished raw materials producers. The local newspapers have long been driven from the scene replaced by print conduits for government propaganda and corporate press releases.

The same parasites who plundered the wealth of the nation have turned on the newspapers which now experience poetic justice. I suppose the moral here is if you go to bed with with a psychopath expect a knife in the back.

By: thesprot

thesprot — Tue, 19 May 2009 17:57:06 +0000

Mainstream Journalists work is to distort reality, and provide a road for the government to undertake horrific policies. In other words they lie, and deceive the people, on behalf of special interest groups ( primarily the Israeli Lobby ) and the government. They are a treacherous bunch, who cheaply sell their soul to the devil just for a monthly pay.

The “free market media” on the other hand, blogs etc, provide far better information, and in many cases, many make more money, than mainstream journalists, based on the content and quality they provide.

By: thesprot

thesprot — Tue, 19 May 2009 17:56:10 +0000

Mainstream Journalists work is to distort reality, and provide a road for the government to undertake horrific policies. In other words they lie, and deceive the people, on behalf of special interest groups ( primary the Israeli Lobby ) and the government. They are a treacherous bunch, who cheaply sell their soul to the devil just for a monthly pay.

By: s burgess

s burgess — Tue, 19 May 2009 17:53:47 +0000

im in australia at the mo.every story ive read about home prices has been done by bankers or real estate agents.one lately by an estate agent showed how much home prices have gone up in 20 years and how the recent 4% drop means its a good time to buy.theres one realy good show late at night in aus called media watch which goes over media stories over the week and one by one shows the media lack of insite biased views and journalists simply copying stories and putting there name on it or ect.ive stoped watching the news

By: Byzantine

Byzantine — Tue, 19 May 2009 17:07:55 +0000

Hey Ryan. Register on Blogger and post on iSteve so you can savage all his questionable theories point by point. I bet you won’t go near there for fear of having your intellectual cojones handed to you.

Point being, folks like Sailer and Raimondo are exactly what journalists should be, and they are conspicuously absent from your analysis. In fact, when oligarchs like Carlos Slim are no longer around to pay the New York Times to tell us that equality of inputs yields equality of outcomes, I’m betting you’re going to weep great tears into your Starbucks.

By: Ryan McMaken

Ryan McMaken — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:53:35 +0000

I savage Sailer because he’s a creepy white supremacist with questionable theories. But, I can’t really figure out what that has to do with my post here.

By: Byzantine

Byzantine — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:54:06 +0000

This is a very carefully constructed blog post. Mr. McMaken’s critique of journalism is entirely outcome-determinative, and thus this post only criticizes the business model. When truly private journalists like Steve Sailer engage in real critical inquiry, McMaken does not hesitate to savage them.

By: Bruce Koerber

Bruce Koerber — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:42:38 +0000

That could change if . . .

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Forbes.com Commentary: Audit The Fed!

So we have the printed news outlets struggling to appear relevant whereas they essentially have two options to choose from that are critical to their existence: pump out the lies and half-truths of the unConstitutional coup OR SATISFY INQUISITIVE MINDS BY PROVIDING THE TRUTHFUL AND LOGICAL WISDOM THAT IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF CLASSICAL LIBERALISM.

Will the media outlets be foolish like the addicts of counterfeit money (the fascist corporations that have gone to bed with the socialist government) and be lead like a hapless puppy down the path of destruction OR WILL THEY AWAKEN TO THE CONCEPT OF ‘FREEDOM OF THE PRESS’ AND ACTUALLY EXPOSE THE FALLACIES OF THE ECONOMIC TERRORISTS THAT COMPOSE THE INNER CIRCLE OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COUP?

If the printed media or any of the other types of media outlets go broke they have no one to blame except themselves (that is, each CEO that has been corrupted and bribed by the ego-driven interventionists).

It is time for the big, corrupt news media outlets to be broken apart by the equilibrium power of the market so that those who are entrepreneurial can provide relevant and truthful news to the people. Let knowledge flow and quickly the usurpers of the Constitution and the ego-driven interventionists and the ego-driven interpeters will be reviled and shunned and sent to their abasement.