Lou Reed reading.
The statement above was on one of the self-descriptive memes going around. Doesn't matter whose because I think it's a fairly common statement among people under thirty-five. It seems to transcend sex, level of education, area of the country, profession, etc.
My question is why. Newspapers are pretty cheap in the scheme of things. And the sort of investigative journalism that newspapers have traditionally paid for cannot be found on TV and radio unless I'm mistaken. When this blogger says, TV, does he mean The Daily Show or does he mean CNN, FOX, MSNBC or the Evening News.
I think news from all of these venues has more of a slant that news in a newspaper ( excepting the editorial page, where it is clear that it is opinion). Do you trust Chris Mathews or Wolf Blitzer or Katie Couric or Jonathan Stewart to give you unbiased well-researched news. If you don't subscribe to a newspaper as a writer, can you honestly complain that your book was not reviewed?
We complain that newspapers are not as good as they used to be but we made them that way by pulling our support. We say we read them online but how long will they be available there if no one pays for it.
Newspapers have traditionally been the most reliable sources of unbiased news yet for a few bucks a week, we're giving it up. I just don't get it. Please explain.