December 6, 2008 12:01 AM
Classified Ad
Well, it's been quite a run, both for the Rocky and for me. This newspaper is the oldest continuously operated business in Colorado, 150 years next April. It has recorded the entire history of the city of Denver, and it will be very sad for many of us if, as most in this business expect, it ceases to exist. I've been the editorial cartoonist for this newspaper for more than a fifth of its existence, and I can't fathom not coming into the newsroom every day--not being here on election night, not rushing in to cover a major breaking story--not having that special bond we ink-addicted wretches share.
When I joined the paper in 1978, a daily newspaper was a citadel of wealth and power. For most of my career, the survival of the paper was never really in doubt, even in the height of the newspaper war between the Rocky and the Post. That it could collapse in just a few short years was unthinkable, but time and technology march on, and this infernal new medium called the internet has taken away both readers and revenue, and rendered our business model obsolete. Readers have flocked to the online edition, where the product is free, and where advertisers have been reluctant to follow. Craigslist, in particular, has drained newspapers of their lifeblood--classified advertising--and there's no revenue stream out there to replace it. If this cartoon drips with bitter irony, forgive me. It's hard to laugh right now, unless it's gallows humor.
December 6, 2008
5:23 AM
Ike writes:
Apparently LetsThink and the rest of that claque haven't paid enough towards your salary. Hopefully Singleton will have room for both you and Keefe; it would be tragic to suffer the loss of your wit and observations. Some of the best political discourse back and forth have followed your cartoons.
In short you will be missed and good luck!
December 6, 2008
7:08 AM
Sandy Fox writes:
As a native of Denver who now lives in another state, it seems unthinkable that when visiting Denver I might not be able to sit at my sister's kitchen table, coffee mug in hand, and read through The Rocky.
Of course I hope The Rocky is purchased by someone who will keep the current staff. Whatever the outcome, rest assured all of you are a part of Denver's history and would be sorely missed.
December 6, 2008
8:14 AM
Its Justme writes:
Ah, Professor Moriarty, you vile fiend, you'll be missed greatly. Best of luck until we meet again. Sherlock.
December 6, 2008
8:29 AM
Ted in Vegas writes:
Don't be silly; the reason all newspapers are failing is the same reason fewer and fewer people are watching ABC, CBS, and NBC - prespun, lefty news.
If your writers would make a realistic attempt to get better educated about the subjects they write about - especially politics, economics and theology - they would be less likely to spin and provide better, in-depth information.
Newspapers deserve to die because they have kept up with the changes in the markets; people want better and more balanced news. Give it, and you'll survive; don't and die.
December 6, 2008
9:37 AM
Locke writes:
Unbelievable, Ted. Yup, it's this left-leaning conspiracy of the news media that's causing it to fail, not the fact that there are now literally thousands more places to get news and buy classifieds online...cough...
December 6, 2008
9:44 AM
wacobloke writes:
The ability of conservative (including Republican) types--who are apparently convinced that it is they, and they only, who understand or know the "true", relevant or "important" facts or knowledge with respect to any subject, and only they who hold the proper social views, and/or are participants in the only valid religious (faith) beliefs--to ignore or excuse the damage done to the journalistic enterprises in the US by the mindless, mean and propagandist rightwing entertainers posing as "journalists" and reporters, is simply amazing.
The tip-off to the reality that these folks are not the mature, intelligent and perceptive citizens that they style themselves to be, and are actually only (maybe unwitting) victims of years of rightwing/Republican political operative propaganda, comes from any call for, or reference t, "fair" and/or "balanced" news.
That means that they have swallowed the conservative con job and spin whole. It is a spin that is based upon a long-running propaganda campaign that "the other" is out to get us, and that we (or our religion) are under attack, and that we therefore need to hate or despise that "other", and that life will be better only if everyone adheres to some (apparently self-evident) "standard" decided by the true believers.
If something is news, it should be accurately and factually reported. Period.
If news is accurately and factually reported, there is no such thing as "opposite" or "differing" news--and there is no such thing as "balancing" news. (The whole idea of fair and balanced news reflects an absurd concept.)
There is nothing sadder than folks who actually believe, for instance, that "Fox" is fair and balanced, or do not recognize that the coarsening of our public discourse (and a reduction in meaningful interaction and potential compromise within and as a result of public discourse) is in large part a direct result of the meanness and snarkiness constantly perpetrated by years of bile spewed by the likes of the Limbaugh's, Hannity's, O'Reilly's, Colter's and the too-numerous-to-name rightwing radio hate merchants who fill the radio airways from coast to coast.
I, for one, am really saddened at the prospect that another traditional newspaper might be ending its publication--even though I am not a supporter or the mostly rightwing leanings of the paper as a whole.
Not so much for its service as an outlet for the news (as Ed's comment acknowledges, there are lots of those), but for its place in the separate process of placing before the public the non-news interpretive features, such as editorial or commentary columns, or the consistently great editorial cartoons of Ed Stein.
It is through reading and being exposed to differing viewpoints and differing interpretation of facts (or, even, being given the disclosure of facts not reported otherwise)that persons in the US can hope to understand and deal with the human complexities that are very real in our country.
Although I may not agree with (and may loathe) the Foxian hate merchants, I recognize that they provide a grist for the mill that is understanding within a complex society.
Likewise, great and talented folks like Ed Stein provide other equally valuable and necessary grist.
I cannot fathom the self-satisfied hubris that is constantly displayed by apparently "conservative" folk who don't seem to recognize the benefits derived from an open forum for differing political, social and faith viewpoints.
I can only hope and trust that if the Rocky ceases to publish, we will still see and learn from Ed's continuing work in other venues and in other places and other rooms.
Ed's work is a national treasure, and it is one beacon in our collective path to better understanding in this complex country and in these complex times.
December 6, 2008
10:25 AM
Locke writes:
Wacobloke - you make excellent points, not the least of which is that "balanced" media is absurd. But I think the true sign that these wack-jobs aren't who they say they are is that they never, ever complain about conservative bias. They'll say that it's because it doesn't exist, but when Murdoch owns an entire media empire, that doesn't exactly ring true. And notice no one complains about the "fair and balance"-ness of Rosen's pieces in the Rocky.
So what they're really saying is not that the media has a conservative spin, but that anything that isn't from a conservative viewpoint is wrong. Now that's some dissonance for you!
December 6, 2008
3:31 PM
richard posadas writes:
I think the bottom line here is money. It's all about money. You offer a great service and I respect what you do. But the price to advertise is to high. If it was affordable more people would advertise with the papers. Lower the price and people will come back. As they make more money so will you.... via bigger ads in the future.. people will allways read the paper...just lower your price to advertise...make it next to nothing and I will run ads with you and I will upgrade as my business grows...
Ricky Posadas
Window Washer
December 6, 2008
3:45 PM
Locke writes:
Ricky,
With all do respect to your idea, which is technically correct, it's not so easy for the newspaper industry. Though they could probably lower prices on ads a little, there is a point at which it is no longer feasible to do so due to the cost of printing those ads in the paper. On the other hand, websites have almost no operating cost and would always be able to undercut newspapers. In fact, in most markets, Craigslist is free (except for job ads).
The truth is that newspapers could have become craigslists in the early days of the internet had they acted fast enough. Because newspapers were the de facto classified distributors already, had they been proactive and started web advertising way back in the day, they could have emerged as the leaders of online classifieds by charging a small amount for web advertising and throwing in the print ad with it, supporting the added cost of printing via ppc text ads on the classifieds website. Instead, the conservative old guards who control the media business missed the that train, and only now trying to catch up. Problem is, they're so far behind that it's no longer profitable to play from behind. They simply lost the advantage they would have had by being able to drive their print subscriber base to their own classifieds website. Now that that base is mostly gone, it's way too late.
This isn't about charging too much, it's about the industry's systematic failure to change their business model when they needed to to stay alive.
December 6, 2008
3:59 PM
richard posadas writes:
I think the bottom line here is money. It's all about money. You offer a great service and I respect what you do. But the price to advertise is to high. If it was affordable more people would advertise with the papers. Lower the price and people will come back. As they make more money so will you.... via bigger ads in the future.. people will allways read the paper...just lower your price to advertise...make it next to nothing and I will run ads with you and I will upgrade as my business grows...
Ricky Posadas
Window Washer
December 6, 2008
4:08 PM
Ed Stein writes:
Let me just add:
First of all, the left-right slant of the paper has nothing to do with the business conditions that led to this juncture. (The Post, the surviving paper, is much more liberal than the Rocky. Explain that one, Ted, if you can). Newspapers of all stripes are suffering exactly the same loss of revenue. And the price of advertising in the paper is hardly at issue. What those outside the business simply don't understand is that classified advertising was the mother's milk of the newspaper, and it has virtually dried up because of FREE classifieds on the internet. No political bias or ad rate change would have affected that reality in any way. The sad truth is that the business model no longer works. Any other explanation is simply misinformed.
December 8, 2008
10:52 AM
Ted in Vegas writes:
Locke: you almost have a point! But, you did leave me something to build on.
Why, exactly, do you think people are turning to those other sources? In large part, that turning to other sources is to find a source of news that doesn't twist facts or draw unsupportable conclusions. That's why I now only go to the opinion pages of most newspapers, the few times I venture into the "news" I find horribly twisted stories; I guess I drew that line when the Denver Post writers horribly twisted my own words to purport a lie. Those writers, when presented - extremely clearly - with facts chose to ignore facts and instead published lies. Too bad I was working for a public official at the time; otherwise I could've sued them and forced the Post under... oh well.
The Rocky, like all papers, are failing because they don't know how to compete in the modern marketplace. ONE of those failures is their foolish holding to the purporting of liberalism that can be found in their "news" in addition to their opinions. Compounding that is a lack of intellectual knowledge about the subjects which newswriters write about (My last paper at Metro covered that problem). I found that a lot of the time, the failure to accurately convey facts and reality stemmed from the writers' own lack of understanding of those facts and their ignorance of the terms being used, even by themselves. (IE. "facist conservatives" is an oxymoron. Facism is a debated term but always conveys collectivism; and, since conservatives always stand against collectivism it is absurdity to call a conservative a "facist". Knowledge of what constitutes a conservative and what constitutes a facist would solve that problem, but few journalists have that knowledge.) That is just one, small example; the lack of intellectual knowledge amongst journalists is quite extensive.
As for the Post, it is failing less slowly because, in part, it is holding truer to its clientele better than the Rocky. The Post is known to be the more liberal of the two Denver papers and therefore liberals choose the Post over the Rocky. The Rocky, on the other hand, has not attempted to market itself to such a distinct market and that is why it is failing faster. Perhaps if the Rocky had forced its writers to get a theoritical knowledge about politics and economics before allowing their writers to cover those subjects, it would be succeeding instead of failing. But alas, the Rocky's can formulate good stories that don't adequately convey reality and therefore is failing.
People will seek out good, solid news and would even be willing to pay for it. Focus on the product and deliver what people want at a good price and you can't fail. The Rocky is not providing what people want...
December 8, 2008
4:14 PM
Penpal writes:
Ted, I have to hand it to you. No matter how many facts are put before you, you have a unique ability to ignore them and to keep believing whatever silliness you believe. It's quite an amazing quality, given how wrong you are about so many things. The readers never abandoned the Rocky for other sites; in fact, the internet readership grew exponentially. What didn't was classified advertising. Last I looked, classified ads were neutral to the political outlook of the newspaper. They went there they're free, and the entire newspaper industry is suffering as a result. Stop the presses! This just in: The Chicago Tribune, that great lion of conservative newspapers, declared bankruptcy. Ted? Ted? Can't reach him. Must be writing another comment on the website.
December 8, 2008
6:11 PM
Ted in Vegas writes:
No, actually, I was working. I like paychecks.
I never said the Rocky's website was being abandoned; where'd you come up with that, Penpal. Oh, yeah, you like to set up strawmen to knock down...
Anyway, papers can still serve a useful purpose but among the contributing factors for people leaving the papers behind, as well as the network news, remains the same; bad - as in increasingly worthless - news.
December 8, 2008
6:44 PM
Ike writes:
Is it worthless news or just news that doesn't quite mesh with your viewpoint, Ted? You are able to make your points succintly and to be a man of strong opinions. The "left leaning media bias" arguement is tiresome at its best; that rhetoric only truly accomplishes is to push the failings of the GOP and being out of touch with their constiutencies into a spotlight.
Retrench, bebuilding the Conservative platform and hope for a more favorable election in 2012. May one suggest that the 2012 campaign actually focus on issues and not attacks?
Honestly sir, when this webpage and Ed's cartoons fold your pointed and acerbic comments are one thing that will be missed. May not agree but you do field valid points from time to time, yet this isn't one of them.
December 9, 2008
10:34 AM
Ted in Vegas writes:
Ike: you miss the point. Its not that they don't write things that mesh with my viewpoint; although that likely affects others. Its that they often fail to show an opposing view AT ALL or, and far more often, COMPLETELY misconstrue the opposing position or viewpoint. My personal dealings with journalists (albeit from the other paper) in addition to my research leads me to believe that the misconstruing of political, economic and theological issues is due to intellectual ignorance on the part of the writers. Most journalists believe they can get an indepth knowledge (or at least enought indepth knowledge) just by listening to the major players; this makes them shallow and easily misled.
You mention attacks; why? Its the job of a political opponent to "attack" the other; often times, especially given our shallow mediaocres, its the only way any measure of knowledge about that politician ever sees the light of day.
December 9, 2008
8:05 PM
Locke writes:
"Its the job of a political opponent to "attack" the other; often times, especially given our shallow mediaocres, its the only way any measure of knowledge about that politician ever sees the light of day."
And that's the whole problem with the conservative movement, in one sentence Ted. When did you confuse PEOPLE with OPPONENTS? Stein and the liberal posters on this blog aren't enemies of yours. They aren't ATTACKING and you don't need to STRIKE BACK. They aren't running for any kind of office. They don't affect you at all. They merely have different opinions. There is no BATTLEFIELD. There is no OPPOSITION. This is not a STRUGGLE for anything, this is a conversation between people. This whole notion that PERSONAL politics is a war zone is what has destroyed all political discourse in the country. I'm calling a permanent DMZ on this blog because clearly the two "SIDES" misunderstood each other. Because there are no sides, no ARMIES, no MILITANTS, only people, CITIZENS who want the best for their country, but have different ideas about what that means.
December 10, 2008
10:59 AM
Ted in Vegas writes:
They are people who are opposing economic freedom and religious liberty and, furthermore, attacking the foundations upon which this nation was built.
I, and many others, are struggling against encroaching liberalism and all of its ilk to maintain American liberty and freedom.
I don't disagree that my opponents want "whats best" best for our country; but I, and many others, do disagree about what is best. Destroying our nation's foundations, rewriting history and misconstruing the present to fit their intentions is not GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY.
I don't want American Exceptionalism to die and the liberal plan is to kill it; therefore, I oppose them. Not with bullets and guns but with ballots and words; but, they have made themselves my opponents nonetheless.
December 10, 2008
11:27 AM
Locke writes:
There is so much wrong with that post I don't even know where to begin. It's sad that you are so far deluded that you actually think the goal of liberalism is to end US exceptionalism. The truth is that there needs to be a balance between ideologies, because ideology is just that - slanted towards one extreme. You need to realize that liberal policies haven't yet destroyed the country, and won't while Obama's President. You also need to realize that pure conservatism is just as bad as pure liberalism. If you truly believe that liberals are out to end US prosperity and that only conservatives will save us, and that's why you've taken up arms in this self-proclaimed war of yours, you've truly taken the Limbaugh delusion to a new level.
December 10, 2008
2:13 PM
Ted in Vegas writes:
Problem is, you overstate my position. I'm not taking up arms; I'm just arguing for my position, which puts me in political opposition to the current administration.
However, I can read history too. I can see how FDR's liberalism extended the Great Depression for about a decade longer than had he not abused government power to interrupt the economy. I don't want more economic misery, but with the current and new administration and the current and new congress - that's what we have to look forward to.
I can see how medical expenses began to sky rocket with the advent of Medicare/Medicaid and how the more government interferes with medical care, the more expensive it gets. But now, we get to look forward to increased medical expenses and medical shortages.
I can see how even if a Great Depression would last for 45 years, you'd still have more retirement money from a mutual fund than you do from Socialist Insecurity, but with the last election that won't change.
I can see how a government pushing the policies similar to Obama's rose the unemployment rates to double-digits and increased misery.
But, America was exceptional because of what it was; are you saying liberals want to restore our heritage? Its liberals that want to remove our heritage and denigrates us clingers (to God and guns).
We've got a real challenge in the next four years, given our electoral choices. We'll see what happens with the electoral pendellum in 2010 and 2012.
But, why is it that when I argue for my ideas (which naturally put me in opposition to people with different ideas) I'm doing something wrong. What about your opposition to people who don't agree with you? By your own standard, that makes you a horrible person too. Do you see the double standard?
December 10, 2008
3:09 PM
Locke writes:
But see Ted, you are at war. You said it yourself that it's your job to attack political opposites. That's how this whole conversation started. Also, you use this weird twist of language to justify your position. You may be opposed to the current administration, but they are not your opposition, as if they need to be defeated.
I don't feel a need to 'attack' people who disagree with me, and I don't view them as my opposition. They are not the enemy, they don't need to be proven wrong. THERE IS NOTHING TO WIN! When adults debate, they do so to be better informed about where there may be truth in an opposing ideology, or where their own ideology might be weak or incorrect, and need adjustment. When you self-styled conservative 'intellectuals' debate, you do so to somehow prove intellectual superiority. Don't you see the problem with that mindset?
Also, your statement about FDR is total nonsense, but it's off subject.
December 10, 2008
5:15 PM
Ted in Vegas writes:
OK, maybe I just made the conceptual jump between what I see as our calling attention to the history of lies and deceit amongst our opponents to what how it is described by media and liberals (but I repeat myself) as "attacks". In other words, I was using your term for my actions even though it doesn't accurately describe my intentions.
My mistake.
I don't believe I'm intellectually superior; but my arguments aren't based on intellect alone for intellect alone cannot replace wisdom and, oft times, intellectualism puts itself diametrically opposed to wisdom.
As for FDR, its well documented that had it not been for FDR that the Great Depression would have lasted but a few years rather than better than a decade. In fact, FDR's policies - as approved by Congress - increased unemployment and inflation in the late 1930s when, had they acted more WISELY and not interfered so INTELLECTUALLY, the Depression would've already been over.
December 15, 2008
4:59 PM
Ruchel Singer writes:
Good grief, guys. Rhetoric, rhetoric.
It's not about political bias or the fact that the "news" is a day old by the time the printed copy gets into our plugged-in homes.
Newspapers are failing because they rely on classified advertising income, which has fallen off because it's so much easier to buy and sell on-line.
That said, Ed Stein is a national treasure and I want to know how I can keep seeing his work.
December 16, 2008
10:47 AM
Ted in Vegas writes:
But, think about the unstated logic behind your reasoning, Ruchel Singer.
What you are saying is that what kept the papers afloat was selling classifieds ads; ok, now think further.
People bought ad space in the classifieds because people bought papers to look through the classifieds; if people didn't look through the ads, those ads would not have been bought. In short, people paid for classifieds ads because they worked.
Now that buyers are increasingly looking online to find things to buy, people are paying for fewer classified ads and the newspapers are failing.
The unstated assumption in all of the above is that the primary reason that most people bought NEWSpapers wasn't THE NEWS.
My claim remains that had the NEWSpapers contained a fair amount of real NEWS that people would still buy NEWSpapers in order to still get NEWS. That would have the side effect of actually making the classifieds more useful.
But, its hard to report NEWS when all you get from papers is "he said, then that other guy said, and then she said" and there is no significant NEWS. There is no depth to the NEWS because the NEWSreporters don't understand the NEWS they report about so all they do is the "he said, then that other guy said, and then she said" gossip.
December 17, 2008
11:48 AM
Penpal writes:
Ted, Ted, Ted, you are indeed the hardest case. For a smart guy, you absolutely refuse to assimilate any new information that might challenge your fossilized opinions. How a guy who writes as well as you do can simultaneously be as consistently wrong and as consistently unable to adapt to new data is a genuine mystery, worthy of scientific study. Maybe if we can figure out what makes a hopeless case like you tick, we can cure the problem in others, as well.
December 17, 2008
5:06 PM
Ted in Vegas writes:
Care to refute my claims? Or, are ad hominem attacks all you got?