or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › USA Today plans 'radical' overhaul to focus on devices like iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

USA Today plans 'radical' overhaul to focus on devices like iPad - Page 3

post #81 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Clearly you like to be the center of attention, so, let's talk about you.

You had to ask, didn't you
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #82 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Most people don't even know Apple makes computers.

- I would disagree on this point. Care to link to any recent data that would show this? I call BS on this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Mention Snow Leopard or Time Capsule or even iMac's to the average consumer and they don't know what you're talking about any more than they know what Flash or Real Player is.

- I disagree on the point of iMac, Flash and Real Player. If you have any data other than your anecdotal experiences then I would look at it. People tend to know Real Player if they've ever had to use it because it tends to be annoying (like Flash it draws attention to itself) and causes the user to do something (like download a plugin). It's pretty clear on websites what's a flash website and what isn't. Average consumer would know Flash (#1), iMac (#2 - my guess), and Real Player (#3). I wouldn't expect a consumer to know Snow Leopard or Time Capsule.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Most people I know can barely open an email or find a web page without getting into trouble.

That's pretty meaningless because I know lots of people who aren't very computer literate but have no problems emailing and web browsing. Oddly enough, things the iPad also excels at - go figure why their is such a large market for it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

I'm thoroughly exhausted from thrashing your posts and I am going to bed now. Have a pleasant night Mr. Talon.

Trolls don't sleep. They simply log into other user accounts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

No one visits Apple's website but geeks like us. Everyone else gets their Apple products from Best Buy and Wal Mart.

Wrong, millions of people every day visit the Apple website. It's one of the most successful/popular retail websites out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Sorry for the multiple replies but I don't know how to answer all your incorrect points at the same time. Just call me an attention craving troll if you like.

Certainly, you are an attention craving troll Blackintosh. It makes no difference to me if you respond in multiple replies or in a single organized reply like I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

We are talking about the iPad, not the phone. As I said twice before and will say again, if Flash is going to suck my battery dry then I don't want to use it on a phone. But an iPad is meant to be used at home with Wi Fi. I have 110 volt plug outlets in my home so all the excuses for not having Flash do not apply to the iPad.

It sounds like you use your iPad primarily plugged into a wall outlet like a computer rather than a mobile device as it was intended. Therefore, the same arguments that applied for the iPhone apply for the iPad. Being mobile means battery life restrictions. You've defeated the purpose of the iPad being a mobile device if you use it continuously plugged into a wall outlet. That's fine, it's just not how it was designed, nor how most non-geeks unlike yourself would use such a product.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

So why can't the iPad have Flash? Because this is a personal issue between Apple and Adobe.

Not at all, it was a simple business issue. If and when Adobe creates a Flash plugin that works efficiently on mobile touchscreen devices that can display the current web content created for Flash desktop, then it will be introduced. They have still yet to deliver it. As I said, go to Macrumors.com for the hit or miss review on it with Android phones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Besides, Safari ain't the best browser in the world anyway. Half the time on my real Mac I get an error message about missing mime plug in's, whatever they are. So I fire up FireFox and get on with business. Can't do that with an iPad, can you?

There are other web browsers for the iPad and iPhone if you care to download them like you did on your Mac. I recommend iCab internet browser as an alternative: http://www.icab.de/ .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

And why not? Does Steve Jobs hate Modzilla the way he hates Verizon and Matte screens and physical buttons and USB 3 and Blu Ray???

You sound like you know what Steve Jobs hates. But it is already abundantly clear that you cannot separate logical business decision making skills from your emotions to see clearly. Links for where he says he hates the above or no dice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

If I go to a website I expect everything to work. Period. If I click a link to see a video clip of Lady Gaga, I don't want to see some message telling me to download flash when I can't.

Youtube.com > search: Lady Gaga. Done. Works perfectly it seems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

If I go to a site that has music samples, I expect them to play. I don't want to see a message saying I need to download Realplayer when I can't.

Those websites can decide to negotiate contracts that enable them to use standards but they don't. Unfortunate for them to limit themselves in that regard and inconvenience potential customers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

I stand by what I initially said. The average Joe has no idea what flash is or what it does.

Far from shown or proven. Is there even an internet survey you could link to? Gosh, I know tons of people who know what Flash is and are average Joe's. I know so many that my anecdotal evidence of knowing people now outweighs yours! I hope your beginning to see they way you argue - with anecdotal evidence - doesn't end up anywhere...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Apple has always done a good job of making the underpinnings of OSX as transparent as possible. How many printer drivers came with Leopard? How many fonts? All so you as the end user won't have to be bothered with downloading stuff and you can get on with your life.

All quite irrelevant in this case, it's like comparing Apple's to Oranges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Then iOS came along. Horrible hobbled experience. And why you guys want to see it on the Mac and the Apple TV is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Sorry you don't like iOS devices that you supposedly continue to buy, own and operate of your own free will and money?
post #83 of 110
This is really a major announcement, and it signals a paradigm shift in the news industry.

It's becoming harder and harder to make money with the print model, so they need to do this to stay afloat.

That being said, they are putting all of their eggs into one basket with their USA Today app for iPad...and it's buggy. It crashes on me at least once every session. Hopefully they focus on fixing things like this.
post #84 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Okay, let's start at the top. The market the iPad is aimed at is internet and email. You can't see 75 percent (Walt Mossberg's figure) of the internet. Not good.

Flash may be outdated proprietary software but it is needed to visit websites. If you don't have you can't see it.

I never said I wanted to edit HD content. You made that up. But since you mentioned it, why is there iMovie for the phone and not the iPad?

And don't call me stupid or I will have you BANNED. Like I was for name calling. BANNED!!!! BANNED!!!!!

Mossberg said something about 75 percent of video content, not the entire web.

While I'm at it, just for the record, what major content can't I view on ipad? YouTube? Hulu? Netflix? Facebook? Any accessible, professionally coded site? I don't have the flash plug in on any of my devices, Windows or Mac and I've yet to be unable to view any content that. Is of interest to me without it.

Back on track, even usa today get it. Why can't you.

You're not even stating your opinion, you just talk crap in order to evoke reaction. Everyone here knows it. You ruin discussion for other site users.
post #85 of 110
When will these 'journalists' realize that they are not fooling anyone. The only news outlet that is going to be left soon is FOX News and The Wall Street Journal. USA Today is evaporating while FOX News and The Jounal just keeps growing. Don't the people at USA Today ask why!
post #86 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Not the point. The point is you can't do something you might otherwise want to do.

Yes but whos fault is that? Can you really blame Apple for rejecting something that has never worked well in mobile space. Or for that matter never worked well on Macs.

You would have a good case if you could produce examples of flash working well on smart phones but you can't because it doesn't exist. Hardware simply can't support what flash demands.
Quote:
Not because the technology doesn't exist.

Ok show us where the technology is viable. Really especially at the time of iPhones introduction or on the memory constrained devices that followed. To take a decision made three years ago and apply it to Adobe's half assed solution they are shipping now is a waste of time.
Quote:
But because the CEO of the company has a personal issue with Adobe.

You have no evidence to support that statement. Especially when it is clear that Adobe never has had and currently doesn't have a viable solution. Don't bother posting back about flash on Android as that just makes you look stupid.


Dave
post #87 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Okay, let's start at the top. The market the iPad is aimed at is internet and email. You can't see 75 percent (Walt Mossberg's figure) of the internet. Not good.

Flash may be outdated proprietary software but it is needed to visit websites. If you don't have you can't see it.

Doesn't matter because flash doesn't work on the current generation of cell phone hardware. You are constantly acting as if flash is viable on these device when in reality it is not.

Now what do you call some one that makes decisions counter to all of the evidence available to him?
Quote:

I never said I wanted to edit HD content. You made that up. But since you mentioned it, why is there iMovie for the phone and not the iPad?

I don't know what Apple is thinking but consider a few possibilities:
1.
IPad doesn't have enough RAM.
2.
IPad doesn't have a video camera.
3.
IPad is running an interim OS thus maybe Apple is waiting for APIs to become available.
4.
Apple knows they can tweak Blackintosh by keep the software off iPad.
Quote:
And don't call me stupid or I will have you BANNED. Like I was for name calling. BANNED!!!! BANNED!!!!!

First off if this thread is any indication name calling was just an excuse to get this crap of yours off the forum for awhile. There simply is no excuse for the garbage that you have left in this thread. The fact is if you keep it up nobody will want you on this forum.

In any event if you don't want to be called stupid supply us with a suitable descriptor. Do you need a list?


Dave
post #88 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

I assume you're either thirteen or retarded? Troll. You're not even stating your opinion, you just talk crap in order to evoke reaction. Everyone here knows it. You ruin discussion for other site users.

Well, good morning. How nice to hear from you,.

I am not ruining the discussion on this site. I am saving this forum by providing insightful commentary rather than blind worship for the great God Jobs. Just because I don't think everything Apple does is magical and revolutionary doesn't make me a troll.

No, you need me on this forum. That is why I am holding back and not calling you what you really are. Don't want to be banned for name calling as I realize what a capital offense it is here.

You fanbois are very sensitive, aren't you? Please don't cry.
post #89 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

- I would disagree on this point.

- I disagree on the point of iMac, Flash and Real Player.

That's pretty meaningless

Wrong.

Certainly, you are an attention craving troll Blackintosh.

Not at all,

no dice.

Far from shown or proven.

All quite irrelevant in this case, it's like comparing Apple's to Oranges.

Whew! Looks like I totally struck out with you there fingernails. Er, excuse me, Talon. I love the way you want me to spend all day providing data and statistics to back up my Apple observations which are common sense to anyone with eyes and ears. And while I'm in the library doing al that research, where will you be? Out having a good time on your day off?

Naah, I think I'll go out and have a good day while you fanbois keep the flames going without me. Enjoy your time alone cause I will be BACK!

And just for the record, when YouTube had the complete Lady GAGA Beyonce Telephone video, it was not available on the mobile version, as well as complete episodes of classic TV shows. iPhone YouTube is not the same thing as the regular site. Go look it up. That's YOUR homework for today. I'm going to the beach now. Chow.
post #90 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Really simple actually. I'm a normal regular person. I see Apple for what it is. A company. Not my friend or my family. I see Steve Jobs for who he is. A CEO, not a God.

Actually I wish more people in this forum where equally like minded. As such though you should realize that Apple strives to make decisions in its best interest. Thus the decision years ago not to crap iOS with flash.
Quote:
I have a realistic view of Apple and it's products. I think the Mac OS is the best thing they make, iLife is terrific and the iPhone is like my third hand.

Yes Mac OS/X is pretty damn good, so good that iOS is derived from it. However iOS is tailored for a completely different market.
Quote:
But lately Apple has taken a turn for the weird. Glass iPhones, ultra glossy iMac screens,

What is the problem with either one of them? Seriously if you think a glass iPhone is a mistake buy a 3GS. As fr the glossy screen whine enough already, the market has pretty much proven that the overwhelming majority like such screens.
Quote:
crippled devices like the iPad and so on.

Crippled isn't the word many would use. Rather they seeit as the first tablet that works well. Besides I'm not going to defend iPad as I see the lack of RAM on the device as a reason not to buy. I don't call it crippled but rather see it as a rev 1 device that doesn't meet my needs. For others it is an ideal device.

Oh and the lack of flash isn't a sign that the device is crippled at all. Rather it is a sign that somebody is taking a stand against crap software.
Quote:
I think Steve Jobs has lost his mind lately, either due to his medications (that's my excuse)

Jobs didn't create the iTunes/app store environment in a vacuum, many very smart people at Apple put this altogether. Nothing in this world is perfect but frankly I've had pretty positive results from these services. In any event Steve is only the head of the company, not every idea is his, it is his job to make any ideas pursued successful though. Sometimes that involves being an excellent salesman. App store and iTunes though pretty much sell themselves these days.
Quote:
or because he is feeling his mortality

This is an interesting comment as history is full of people that have come back from a near death experience and enjoyed great success. I not going to dive into the psychology behind this but it does happen.

You seem to take this additional focus as a negative yet the market votes with dollars and by that measure iPad has been very successful. So maybe he is feeling his mortality or maybe not but he certainly has a feel for what people want.
Quote:
and wants to force another revolutionary product out before the end. He thinks the magical iPad is it, but it ain't. Not by a long shot.

By any measure the iPad has been a wild success for Apple. As to what Steve thinks of iPad, realize it is only one element of a very interesting line up of products. I don't think it is his desire to force anything except for possible good design. In the end he can only guide Apple to make the best products they can. After that the market takes over.

IPad is revolutionary if you step back and look at what it is doing to the market. It trashed netbook sales for one. It has caused many manufactures to rethink their tablet plans and at the same time has spurred the development of new OSes to compete with iPad.

Revolution or not what is notable here is that this was all done with a marginal platform or a very rev one device. That should be considered amayzing in and of itself. After all who would have thought that any modern tablet could be successful with only a 120MB or so of RAM available to the installed apps? Even worst non paged RAM for data.
Quote:
Care to argue the point? As if you could anonymoose.

Unfortunately we loose focus again.

In any event iPad isn't designed for the needs of every potential user. It is designed to reliably serve the needs of a large number of users. That it does very well.

I'm not surprised at all that it sells well. There are many positives when buying into iPad and the app store and iTunes infrastructure around it. Obviously it isn't for you but it is a wonderful thing for many.



Dave
post #91 of 110
This thread should be closed.
post #92 of 110
USA was the last paper I subscribed to. But it became so pro-Obama I had to bail. It was mostly fluff anyway. I think people want news, features, etc. without the political spin.
post #93 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Besides, Safari ain't the best browser in the world anyway. Half the time on my real Mac I get an error message about missing mime plug in's, whatever they are. So I fire up FireFox and get on with business. Can't do that with an iPad, can you?

Wow wait a moment, Firefox is terrible on my mac. It is wonderful on Windows but the Mac OS X port is garbage. It doesn't recognize the build in Java of Mac OS and gives me spinning wheels a lot. Also I doesn't have a good spellcheck which is crucial in my opinion..

I was a huge proponent of Firefox in its early day and got everybody around me to switch, but when I got my first mac I switched away from it within 2 weeks.

Since Safari 5 came out I mainly use it because I cannot live without extensions and Chromium did give me some rendering problems at that time. (Didn't want to use Chrome because of privacy issues)

Never looked back though - I have to say that with Adblock, Click-to-flash, Youtube5 and AutoPagerize I now have a better experience in Safari than I had in Firefox back in the days.
post #94 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

And while I'm in the library doing al that research, where will you be? Out having a good time on your day off?

Then:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Naah, I think I'll go out and have a good day while you fanbois keep the flames going without me. Enjoy your time alone cause I will be BACK! I'm going to the beach now. Chow.

----

I've been reading AppleInsider for years, AI really needs to create a community spam/troll list so that people with history of this are automatically hidden from public (non-login viewers). Why? Because I don't log in when I read the comments, which means I have to read over all the trolls comments as well. AI is big enough that it doesn't need to tolerate all the extra baggage of trolls.
post #95 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Yeah right. How many iPad owners had to put down their shiny new glass tools and grab a real computer to watch the Glenn Beck festival in Washington? No flash, no deal.

Screw the Apple walled garden.

Perhaps none?
Number of people in ignore list : 1
Reply
Number of people in ignore list : 1
Reply
post #96 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

The Journal on the iPad is the slowest, buggiest, most locked-in app of the lot.

I happen to think it's shockingly poorly implemented, but I am just one data point.

You have got to be kidding.

Not only is the WSJ content the best; it is the easiest to navigate and the organization is second to none.

The NYT is crippled because they can not publish the whole paper because of contractual obligations. USA Today is colorful and free but it's a small paper, some of the same articles are repeated in different sections on the iPad.

WSJ on the iPad is the full paper and it is cheap compared to the newsstand price. The default font is the easiest to read; navigating the articles is awesome and all the pictures are included off-line. You have access to a week's worth of papers plus a "now" paper as it is being written. You can save articles that you like etc...

WSJ has the best content, easiest to navigate, most up to date news, best archiving feature. It is not free but it is well worth the price.
post #97 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by res08hao View Post

USA was the last paper I subscribed to. But it became so pro-Obama I had to bail. It was mostly fluff anyway. I think people want news, features, etc. without the political spin.

I'm surprised that anybody really subscribes to that rag. I always thought that their entire circulation was given away for free at airports and hotels.
post #98 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Hi. I'm back from the beach now. Boy was it hot. My head really got fried today!

I love it that you were all talking about ME while I was gone. I really do rule this forum. Thank you all for being my fans!

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, he's still delusional, so that may be a permanent thing with him. Notice how he gets all shy and reticent when we actually give him the attention he wants? He's probably just afraid to admit that he needs help.

You're not making the situation any better.
post #99 of 110
All,

The recent childish bitching in this thread has been deleted. I would like to draw your attention to posting guideline number 4, which includes the statement "attack ideas, not people". Personal attacks will not be tolerated whether they be aimed at an alleged "troll" or anyone else.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #100 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

A lot of people are reading their iPads on the NYC Subway nowadays because it is just convenient to carry all your newspapers and magazines electronically.

No one has ever been mugged for a printed copy of USA Today but flashing around a shiny $800 iPad in the subway might be a little risky.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #101 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

As if those icons of yellow journalism at CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC are any different...

Truthfully [disclaimer - no news organization in the present day is without some level of bias] I read a number of news feeds from elsewhere to get a more complete view on what's happening in the US. And I check the wireservices feeds as well to see who is spinning what off the feeds. I discount much of the reporting on most of the cable news services for that reason.

USAToday/Gannett runs very shallow on their reporting and usually if it isn't on the wires they don't cover it. Whether as a news service they can make the move and gain quality on their reporting remains to be seen.
post #102 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

Truthfully [disclaimer - no news organization in the present day is without some level of bias] I read a number of news feeds from elsewhere to get a more complete view on what's happening in the US. And I check the wireservices feeds as well to see who is spinning what off the feeds. I discount much of the reporting on most of the cable news services for that reason.

USAToday/Gannett runs very shallow on their reporting and usually if it isn't on the wires they don't cover it. Whether as a news service they can make the move and gain quality on their reporting remains to be seen.

Note that the term "yellow journalism" is used almost exclusively today as a stand-in for reporting stories that don't endorse the particular point of view espoused by the claimant. Which is certainly not its original meaning. Note also the obvious omission in the list of networks which allegedly engage in it.

As you say, the real problem is the lack of depth and the reduction in the number of news agencies engaged in actual reporting, as opposed to repetition and editorializing. It's the product we are being sold today, and sadly most people are happily buying it.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #103 of 110
"journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Note that the term "yellow journalism" is used almost exclusively today as a stand-in for reporting stories that don't endorse the particular point of view espoused by the claimant.

Which is usually enforced with sensationalism and crude exaggeration if you ask me. Interestingly the term was first seen way back in 1895 so what we are seeing is not new.
Quote:
Which is certainly not its original meaning. Note also the obvious omission in the list of networks which allegedly engage in it.

As you say, the real problem is the lack of depth and the reduction in the number of news agencies engaged in actual reporting, as opposed to repetition and editorializing. It's the product we are being sold today, and sadly most people are happily buying it.

I dismiss this, to an extent anyways, because we actually have more people and organizations reporting "news" than we ever had in the past. Just look at any of the recent disasters that have hit the planet, be it Katrina, the Earthquake around the globe, or tidal waves washing ashore in distant lands. In many cases the traditional news outlets where the worst places to go for up to the minute information on what was going on. Yet any reasonable person could keep himself well informed via the alternative media or sources if you will.

Finally news of this sort really doesn't need the editorializing of the common media as you point out. You rightly point this out but what is funny or sad is that the major media sees editorializing as a way to deal with the raw access we have now. Frankly the stuff I call news is often self reporting, if you see a city wiped out by an earthquake, via numerous feeds, you really don't need ignorant editorial to tell you how bad it is. In many ways reporting on the news is an outmoded occupation.

Dave
post #104 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

"journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration"

Which is usually enforced with sensationalism and crude exaggeration if you ask me. Interestingly the term was first seen way back in 1895 so what we are seeing is not new.


I dismiss this, to an extent anyways, because we actually have more people and organizations reporting "news" than we ever had in the past. Just look at any of the recent disasters that have hit the planet, be it Katrina, the Earthquake around the globe, or tidal waves washing ashore in distant lands. In many cases the traditional news outlets where the worst places to go for up to the minute information on what was going on. Yet any reasonable person could keep himself well informed via the alternative media or sources if you will.

Finally news of this sort really doesn't need the editorializing of the common media as you point out. You rightly point this out but what is funny or sad is that the major media sees editorializing as a way to deal with the raw access we have now. Frankly the stuff I call news is often self reporting, if you see a city wiped out by an earthquake, via numerous feeds, you really don't need ignorant editorial to tell you how bad it is. In many ways reporting on the news is an outmoded occupation.

Dave

The example you offer suggests to me the opposite conclusion. One of the trends of the last 30 years or so that started the general news spiral down the porcelain receptacle is the TV news preoccupation with sticking cameras in people's faces and asking them how they feel about something. As in, "your house just burned down, how do you feel about that?" Now we think of this as journalism I suppose, but it's not. And neither is all the "self reporting" you describe. A video of a riot in Tajikistan doesn't tell us anything about why it's happening, why we should care, or even where Tajikistan is located in the world. Putting this in proper context is the job of journalism. I'm sure it's an old-fashioned sentiment on my part, but I'd rather have news events correctly reported tomorrow by someone who understands them, than thrown into my face today by someone who doesn't.

I think all the editorializing that infects the cable news channels is a result primarily of the glut of time they have to fill. Commentators are relatively cheap. They don't have to do any actual reporting, can make stuff up as they go along, and get the audience all fired up. So that's the economics-driven road we've gone down. Used to be the major networks took pride in their news divisions, even though they usually lost money. No more. What's become obsolete is our interest in understanding.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #105 of 110
For those enjoying the debate on modern journalism, I strongly recommend you check out Charlie Brooker's Newswipe on You Tube (originally broadcast on BBC 4 in the UK).
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #106 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

For those enjoying the debate on modern journalism, I strongly recommend you check out Charlie Brooker's Newswipe on You Tube (originally broadcast on BBC 4 in the UK).

I second that. Always on point and hilarious.

One of my favourites: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHun58mz3vI
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #107 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

For those enjoying the debate on modern journalism, I strongly recommend you check out Charlie Brooker's Newswipe on You Tube (originally broadcast on BBC 4 in the UK).

Very good. Dowdy Kitchen Man. We have him in the States too.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #108 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I think all the editorializing that infects the cable news channels is a result primarily of the glut of time they have to fill. Commentators are relatively cheap. They don't have to do any actual reporting, can make stuff up as they go along, and get the audience all fired up. So that's the economics-driven road we've gone down. Used to be the major networks took pride in their news divisions, even though they usually lost money. No more. What's become obsolete is our interest in understanding.

Part of it is publicly traded for-profit corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder value. They can't just take a repeated loss if they can do something about it. Even if that wasn't true, news is also owned by large conglomerates, few are willing to take a sustained loss of any division just as a matter of pride, they have to justify costs to their shareholders. I think those factors have led to the situation where they strongly prefer information given to them rather than go out and find their own.

For the dedicated channels, having 24 hours to fill isn't helping either, they have to make 30 minutes' worth of news fill 24 hours.

I don't watch any cable news channel (or TV news for that matter), they're all too annoying, Two of them have very specific, painfully overt political agendas to boot, the others aren't as bad, but still annoying for one reason or another.
post #109 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Part of it is publicly traded for-profit corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder value. They can't just take a repeated loss if they can do something about it. Even if that wasn't true, news is also owned by large conglomerates, few are willing to take a sustained loss of any division just as a matter of pride, they have to justify costs to their shareholders. I think those factors have led to the situation where they strongly prefer information given to them rather than go out and find their own.

For the dedicated channels, having 24 hours to fill isn't helping either, they have to make 30 minutes' worth of news fill 24 hours.

I don't watch any cable news channel (or TV news for that matter), they're all too annoying, Two of them have very specific, painfully overt political agendas to boot, the others aren't as bad, but still annoying for one reason or another.

Back in the good old/bad old days of the "big three" networks, the news departments were treated as loss-leaders. They were public corporations then too, but having respectable news programming was considered to be a point of pride which gave a gloss to everything else they did, or maybe even formed a bit of a counterbalance to other programming which was not so classy. Now with the profusion of 24/7 news channels each one has to make money on this programming alone. So they pander, and they've discovered the value of pandering to a preselected demographic.

I don't watch any of the cable network news stations either, except when they are forced on me at places like airports and the like. The only TV news I watch is the NewsHour on PBS. It's the only news remaining on TV worth the time.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #110 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

"journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration"

Of course there's nothing new about yellow journalism. Newspaper reporting in the late 19th / early 20th century was rife with outrageous and completely untrue content. I think the period of time beginning with TV coverage of the Vietnam war, the space race, and the Watergate hearings was one in which major media news reporting was generally regarded as legitimate and trustworthy. In my opinion the inexorable slog downhill toward the inane muck that prevails today began shortly after the time of Gulf War I.

In the context of history, I think that brief chapter in legitimate "journalism" will be seen as an anomaly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Back in the good old/bad old days of the "big three" networks, the news departments were treated as loss-leaders. They were public corporations then too, but having respectable news programming was considered to be a point of pride which gave a gloss to everything else they did, or maybe even formed a bit of a counterbalance to other programming which was not so classy. Now with the profusion of 24/7 news channels each one has to make money on this programming alone. So they pander, and they've discovered the value of pandering to a preselected demographic.

That's exactly what I mean when I wrote about "nooz" having become a product that's packaged and sold, to a demographic with no more than an eighth grade comprehension level. I'm not buying.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • USA Today plans 'radical' overhaul to focus on devices like iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › USA Today plans 'radical' overhaul to focus on devices like iPad