Yahoo! UK editor says newspapers aren’t trustworthy

Editors’ Weblog: Yahoo! UK editor Simon Hinde says ““Young people are leaving newspapers in droves because print news isn’t trustworthy. It’s vanity on the part of newspapers to push a particular political view. Facts are distorted to fit a particular view of the world and they don’t give a dispassionate view of events. Niche subjects are very well covered online because of semi-professional commentary. There are now mechanisms for blogs to be monetised and that is opening up a whole range of possibilities.”
I’m eager to see reaction to this one. Is Hinde too far away to get blasted by the folks who said LATime’s wikipedia was a failure–or will the long arm reach out?

Latest Comments

  1. Gary Hodges says:

    If I read what your saying correctly; it seems to me that Blogs could go the same way as Newspapers, only faster since its virtual. What I mean to say is that a lot of blogs are also “monetized” or interests are bought and therefore the news can take a biased point of view. I do, partially, disagree about the reason for the move away of the readership. I don’t know anyone who gives a dispassionate view of things in the news. Hence, a biased viewpoint and its a fact of life to be such; the semi-professional bent is relative. Blogging really provides an open dialog that is near real-time. It also, allows you to express yourself, and see that it will be read; at least by one person, on a particular subject. The Newspapers only print selected, albeit balanced, readership comments in the opinion section. They say its limited due to space constraints, but if it were me and I owned the paper I would publish all comments. Finally, you could say that blogging is expressing yourself to the world and hope you get feedback, as we all would like affirmation of our feelings, which is often not the case.

  2. Randy says:

    I would completely agree with the characteriztion of newspapaers and their failings – and it only scratches the surface of their arrogance. But what of the distortion, or complete ignoring, or facts on blogs? I think wikipedia is so hopelessly slanted and distorted that it’s not worth consulting most of the time – I’m at a loss to see how combining the biases of the traditional media with the biases of bloggers is supposed to produce a superior result. My father was a schoolteacher in the city and we lived in the suburbs, so we often had different vacation days when I would go to school with him. Once, the students wanted to have an open discussion instead of a lecture, and my father asked them, “Why? We haven’t studied this subject yet; why not listen to the teacher first? Or do you think that, by combining your ignorance, you will somehow achieve wisdom?” I agree that we are sometimes hard-pressed to come up with facts; I’m just not sure I should look to blogs for them, or that the monetization of blogs means that facts will appear there faster.
    Oh, and BTW, the gentleman who pontificates that he would publish all the comments if he owned the paper…does he really need to be reminded of the relative costs of bandwidth and print space? It took an enormous amount of capital and effort to create the infrastructure for newspapers, radio, and TV, and the wonder of creative destruction to see them rapidly descend into obsolescence with the advent of the net and the blogosphere; wouldn’t a more cogent comment be that if I had capital to invest, I would put it into bandwidth and not printing presses, because then you could publish anything you wanted? It’s easy to pat yourself on the back and SAY you could do better than the newspaper publisher. Big deal – it would be hard to do WORSE, right?

  3. Gary Hodges says:

    You approach this like you see no turning back; Newspapers are dying. Personnally, I don’t want to sit in front of my monitor ALL the time and read. I already sit in front of one at work 12 hours a day. You speak of costs to change the bandwidth. I expressed what I thought. You did as well, your entitled to express yourself. Your argument expresses no possibility. I like the soul sitting back in a comfortable seat and reading a paper, writing a hand written letter, etc. If I decide I don’t like what I’ve read or think its bent as an untruth, then I will look into it further. This is why I propose saving the life of newspapers. “IF” I had the money or power I would do what it takes to save them. But, thanks for your comments, anyway.

  4. susan mernit says:

    Gary–many people love newspapers; I think everyone believes newspapers will continue, but there is no question circulation is dropping and fewer people are buying newspapers.

Latest Comments

Comments are closed.