School Rejects Free Newspapers

grayman

Happy-go-lucky Heretic
grayman
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
5,655
From an AP article entitled School rejects free newspapers:
After a parent complained about the "sex, death and general mayhem" in newspapers, a suburban elementary school decided to cut off students' access to free copies provided by the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
Click to expand...

I am reminded of the following quote:

"Teach the young people how to think, not what to think" - Sidney Sugarman
 
Maybe I could supply the school with newspapers filled with stuff I invent, so as not to injure any delicate psyches.
Let's see...the Care Bears win the November elections, Muslim extremists decide America is the Great Saviour, nobody has sex except if they're married (and heterosexual and only the missionary position), and all the kids will get jobs and be treated like gold when they graduate high school.

Aaaah, life is good.
 
grayman said:
"Teach the young people how to think, not what to think" - Sidney Sugarman
Click to expand...

I fail to see the point of chnageing a stratergy that has served humanity well for several thousand years
 
HI :)

Unfortunately, it is NOT the newspaper's job (or meaning) to write what their readers want to hear. A newspaper's job is, imho, to report what has happened -- and if only sex, death and mayhem happens, then the newspaper reports this.

Anyway, most 7 or years old I know DO not read newspapers...
 
When are schools going to stop bending over every time one uptight idiot ass complains about something?
 
aries said:
HI :)

Unfortunately, it is NOT the newspaper's job (or meaning) to write what their readers want to hear. A newspaper's job is, imho, to report what has happened -- and if only sex, death and mayhem happens, then the newspaper reports this.

Anyway, most 7 or years old I know DO not read newspapers...
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it IS the newspaper's goal to make money. And what sells? My own observation has been that sex and violence make great headlines that catch folks' attention. Too many 'good' stories get relegated to the back pages. So, the question about what readers want to hear is often reflected in what newspapers choose to print, else they wouldn't sell. Economics, it's all economics, I believe, regardless of any ideal about what newspapers Should print.
 
Raphael said:
Maybe I could supply the school with newspapers filled with stuff I invent, so as not to injure any delicate psyches.
Let's see...the Care Bears win the November elections, Muslim extremists decide America is the Great Saviour, nobody has sex except if they're married (and heterosexual and only the missionary position), and all the kids will get jobs and be treated like gold when they graduate high school.

Aaaah, life is good.
Click to expand...

I think TheOnion.com might be a good substitute then! However, elementary kids or not, seems we should be ENCOURAGING reading... especially issues about life in the real world and a little less Harry Potter.
 
gdtbiker said:
Unfortunately, it IS the newspaper's goal to make money [. . .] Economics, it's all economics, I believe, regardless of any ideal about what newspapers Should print.
Click to expand...
But that's not a newspaper's meaning. I don't buy a newspaper because it's the output of a profitable business—but because of what it will report and what analysis/opinion it is likely to have. A newspaper editor is not in her job only to rent her time to the highest bidder. The only ones for whom financial gain is the be-all and end-all are the shareholders, but their goals could not be met without the presence of other economic agents for whom the newspaper has little to do with making money.

/I hate free newspapers BTW
 
If the St. Paul Pioneer Press is anything like the suburban-Chicago Pioneer Press, it's a newpaper with 15% high school student attaboys, 5% other local fluff stories and police reports, and 80% realtor ads.

Those police reports can sometimes have sex, death, and general mayhem, I suppose...
 
Last edited:
acuity said:
But that's not a newspaper's meaning. I don't buy a newspaper because it's the output of a profitable business—but because of what it will report and what analysis/opinion it is likely to have. A newspaper editor is not in her job only to rent her time to the highest bidder. The only ones for whom financial gain is the be-all and end-all are the shareholders, but their goals could not be met without the presence of other economic agents for whom the newspaper has little to do with making money.

/I hate free newspapers BTW
Click to expand...
Idealized notions of newspapers tend to lose the battle of treading water in the sea of reality. The fact still remains that if it wasn't a profitable business, there would be no output of a newspaper for you to buy. Exceptions of course include those papers that are non-profit. I don't know exactly what you mean by "other economic agents", but "economic" refers to money. Perhaps if all newspaper buyers/readers were ideological and we all only bought newspapers that reported the news, the whole news, and nothing but the news,... well, then it'd be a really nice thing. The reality however, is different. Bad news sells, especially if it's on the front page in bold print. Good news tends to bow to sex, violence, mayhem, disasters, etc.. Newspaper selling takes advantage of basic human nature, which is not necessarily anything to do with an ideal of fair and balanced reporting when it comes to making decisions about which newspaper to buy. In the end though, I suppose that one's notion of fair and balanced is the real question - I suspect people will differ on what should and shouldn't be printed on the front page. Different newspapers have different readerships that have varying tastes which lead them to purchase the papers they purchase. It is well documented that newspapers differ in their slants on the news stories they publish and which particular type of stories make it to the front page. Else, we'd all be buying the same newspaper, or not.
 
I don't get this kind of reasoning. Whats wrong with teaching kids about violence and murders, leave alone sex? Isn't it "lets pretends those things don't exist" logic?
 
gdtbiker said:
Idealized notions of newspapers tend to lose the battle of treading water in the sea of reality. The fact still remains that if it wasn't a profitable business, there would be no output of a newspaper for you to buy.
Click to expand...
Nice metaphors but there's nothing "idealised" about it—and your fact is beside the (my) point. If buyers of newspapers were not gaining some utility of a higher value than the newspaper's cover price, they would not voluntarily part with their cash. Their return can be measured financially yet it is not financial—else they would buy a government bond instead of the paper.

Exceptions of course include those papers that are non-profit.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with not-for-profit. Actually the free papers I refer to available in London earn their revenue from advertising and are certainly profit-driven.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "other economic agents", but "economic" refers to money.
Click to expand...
Buyers and sellers and value-adding participants. Please don't forget that money is typically one side only of any voluntary transaction. I am not buying a newspaper for a financial gain. Typically I am not able so sell it on to someone else for more than I paid for it.

Perhaps if all newspaper buyers/readers were ideological and we all only bought newspapers that reported the news, the whole news, and nothing but the news,... well, then it'd be a really nice thing.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. If money was the only consideration, there would not be newspapers, or literature, or art, or food, or consumer-discretionary items, or . . . [snip]. There would only be treasury bonds.

The reality however, is different. Bad news sells, especially if it's on the front page in bold print. Good news tends to bow to sex, violence, mayhem, disasters, etc.. Newspaper selling takes advantage of basic human nature, which is not necessarily anything to do with an ideal of fair and balanced reporting when it comes to making decisions about which newspaper to buy.
Click to expand...
So why does "The Economist" sell any copies? Or the "Wall Street Journal"? Or "Nature"? Or "Foreign Affairs"? Your analysis of the print media sector is focussed solely on the mass-market elements. What you say is true but hardly all-encompassing.

In the end though, I suppose that one's notion of fair and balanced is the real question - I suspect people will differ on what should and shouldn't be printed on the front page. Different newspapers have different readerships that have varying tastes which lead them to purchase the papers they purchase. It is well documented that newspapers differ in their slants on the news stories they publish and which particular type of stories make it to the front page. Else, we'd all be buying the same newspaper, or not.
Click to expand...
Finally you drop the "it's all about money" line. :)
 
Acuity,

It appears that we are not on the same page. I don't think we are even reading the same newspapers. You are certainly entitled and welcome to your own opinion. My opinion is unchanged however - I still think that the bottom line of a general (for profit) newspaper and it's particular selection of news to print is financial. Perhaps my early statement "Economics, it's all economics" is what got you all fired up. It was meant as a general sentiment and was not intended to be taken literally as in All, everything, no exceptions, nothing else, etc.

In any case, I can recognize when an exchange has started to hold the potential for overly contentious positions of opposition that fail to serve any lasting purpose other than to defend one's personal position on an issue as a matter of ego. I've had my say, and you've had yours. I'm happy to leave it at that.
 
acuity said:
OK if you like. Good wind down . . . :)
Click to expand...

No offense, but the actual purpose of anything produced to be sold is to make a profit - and that extends to news services of any type. That is not , of necessity, a preference but it is a requirement for such to continue its' existence.
 
fuelair said:
No offense, but the actual purpose of anything produced to be sold is to make a profit - and that extends to news services of any type. That is not , of necessity, a preference but it is a requirement for such to continue its' existence.
Click to expand...

That is a simplification of the truth. The exceptions to the rule are many.

Non-profit organisations do not, by definition make a profit.

Public companies are not there to maximise profit. They only must make enough profit to keep the shareholders happy. They can also try to increase the share price. Or keep more people employed. Or may the directors more money.

Or a media organisation could exist to publish a certain point of view.

The list goes on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom