<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Thanks for your reply, Carl.<div><br></div><div>It seemed to me that Cockburn took too much delight in ridiculing McChesney and Nichols for their attempt to say that newspapers, i.e., multivaried journalism, is essential for a decent and robust body politic. They too of course would agree that the state of our major news media is deplorable, that we need better newspapers and a much greater variety of viewpoints and news articles in them. Multiplicity in reports and views is the essential thing; one can't expect any particular newspaper or periodical to reflect that multiplicity. Doesn't everybody sentient know that? I too often get impatient in reading an article which doesn't tell me anything new, that I already knew, that simply derides. But I suppose that is Cockburn's business. Fortunately, he does on occasion bring in a point of view or a report worth airing. It's hard to write something new and illuminating every week. I'm surprised he continues to write for <i>The Nation, </i>that outpost of much he despises. </div><div><br></div><div>My view of the Financial Times is that it is a interesting conservative, business/corporatist, news journal, with a view tinted by its English/European sensibility. It too slants the news, as does the NYT, but the slants are somewhat different, hence useful. Its analyses are often more sophisticated than found in the NYT, and less rightist than the WSJ. I'm wondering whether I should continue to subscribe to it; until now I got it free.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards, Mort</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Jan 15, 2010, at 12:44 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>The conclusion of this amiable and articulate article amongst the general lamentation for newspapers' desuetude ("Asleep, my love? / What, dead, my dove?") is that we need better newspapers. Of course, we need better media in general - outlets that are not simply large business corporations, which are parts of even larger business corporations. Instead, we need "vagabonds and outlaws." All the great spirits of modern Western journalism - from Erasmus to Marx to I. F. Stone (to mention only the departed) have been refugees, unclubbable and even occasionally sour.<br><br>It was Joseph Pulitzer, of all people, who said, "Newspapers should have no friends.” Pimps pretend they're friends, as the corporate owners of newspapers do. But true outlaws should be wary of such interested friends. Cockburn and his co-editor Jeffrey St. Clair set out in detail what happens to the press with friends like that in "End Times: The Death of the Fourth Estate" (AK Press, 2006)<br><br>Cockburn is the son of the British I. F. Stone, Claud Cockburn, whose books (including his wonderful autobiography, "I, Claud") give an unparalleled picture of 20th c. journalism. And Cockburn fils has been writing knowledgeably & insightfully about the US press for 35 years, to my certain knowledge: I began reading his "Press Clips" column in the old Village Voice in the mid-1970s.<br><br>But you're right, of course, that it's easy to take pot-shots at Nichols: he was the one who wrote in The Nation that Obama's Nobel speech was "an exceptionally well-reasoned and appropriately humble address" delivered with "a grace that was as appealing as it was commendable.” As the reports come in of US Special Forces rousting children from their beds, handcuffing them and murdering them ("suspected terrorists") in Afghanistan, the liberal American press is still able to praise the charming blood-stained monster Obama has become.<br><br>In answer to your last question, the NYT is the only game in town: all of the "straight" press (as we used to say) says the same thing (e.g., there's been no general circulation socialist paper in the US since WWII), and they take their marching orders from the NYT, to which I do subscribe; I also subscribe to (and read first) the Financial Times - much better than the NYT (the business press is better than "political" papers like the NYT and the WaPo because the business elite need to know what's really going on, not the propaganda cover) - and read others, domestic & foreign, online.<br><br>A friend of mine in college said that, on Sunday mornings, "I read the New York Times to find out what I think" ("...and late / Coffee and oranges in a sunny chair"?). He knew at least what he was supposed to do.<br><br>I also do a local public television show (7pm Fridays on ch. 6) called "News from Neptune" and devoted to "the news of the week and its coverage by the media." It welcomes "vagabonds and outlaws." Is that constructive?<br><br>The best will in the world can do the right thing (be constructive?) only by accident, in the absence of an accurate analysis of the situation. (And frenetic demand for constructively puts me in mind of Barbara Ehrenreich's latest book.)<br><br>Cockburn's strikes me as the more accurate analysis of the situation in regard to newspapers: "By and large, down the decades, the mainstream newspapers have — often rabidly — obstructed and sabotaged efforts to improve our social and political condition."<br><br>Regards, CGE<br><br><br>Morton K. Brussel wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">It is not clear what the conclusion of this sappy sour article is: Would we<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">all be better off if newspapers disappeared? Or, if only the major ones like<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the NYT disappeared? Or should we only support newspapers we like? Or only<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">those who report on local affairs? In short, this articles doesn't lead<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">anywhere constructive, except to deride the present state of much of our news<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">media (which is hardly constructive). I suppose one conclusion is that not<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">much would be lost if newspapers disappeared (except that Cockburn does favor<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">his local paper). The only object seems to be to take pot shots at McChesney<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and Nichols, which, especially for the latter, is too easy.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">--mkb<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">P.S. Carl, do you subscribe to the NYT or any other major news sheet? Why?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Jan 14, 2010, at 10:18 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">[This reminds me to renew my subscription to the Anderson Valley Advertiser<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> <<a href="http://theava.com/">http://theava.com/</a>>. I sometimes think we could use such a paper around<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">here - something like the old Octopus. But maybe the US media world has<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">changed too much. Local papers have been co-opted just as other local media<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">(radio, TV) have been. --CGE]<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Who Needs Yesterday's Papers? Alexander Cockburn<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I read the anguished valedictories to our sinking newspaper industry, the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">calls for some sort of government bailout or subsidy, with mounting<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">incredulity. It's like hearing the witches in "Macbeth" evoked as if they<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">were the beautiful Aphrodite and her rivals vying for the judgment of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Paris.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Sonorous phrases about "public service" mingle with fearful yelps about the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"dramatically diminished version of democracy" that looms over America if<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the old corporate print press goes the way of the steam engine. In The<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Nation recently, John Nichols and Robert McChesney quavered that "as<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">journalists are laid off and newspapers cut back or shut down, whole<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">sectors of our civic life go dark" and that "journalism is collapsing, and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">with it comes the most serious threat in our lifetimes to self-government<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and the rule of law as it has been understood here in the United States."<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I came to America in 1973, to the Village Voice, which Dan Wolf, Ed Fancher<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and Norman Mailer founded in 1955 to bring light to those whole sectors of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">civic life kept in darkness by the major newspapers of the day, starting<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">with the New York Times. As a tot I'd been given bracing tutorials about<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the paradigms of journalism and class power by my father, Claud, who'd<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">founded his newsletter The Week in the 1930s as counterbalance to the awful<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">mainstream coverage. From Europe, I'd already been writing for Kopkind and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Ridgeway's Hard Times and also for Ramparts, respectively a newsletter and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a monthly founded — like much of the old underground press — to compensate<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">for the ghastly mainstream coverage of the upheavals of the '60s and the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Vietnam War.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In other words, any exacting assessment of the actual performance of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">newspapers rated against the twaddle about the role of the Fourth Estate<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">spouted by publishers and editors at their annual conventions would issue a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">negative verdict in every era. Of course, there have been moments when a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">newspaper or a reporter could make fair claims to have done a decent job,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">inevitably eradicated by a panicky proprietor, a change in ownership,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">advertiser pressure, eviction of some protective editor or summary firing<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of the enterprising reporter. By and large, down the decades, the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">mainstream newspapers have — often rabidly — obstructed and sabotaged<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">efforts to improve our social and political condition.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In an earlier time, writers like Mencken, Hecht and Liebling loved<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">newspapers, but the portentous claims for their indispensable role would<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">have made them hoot with derision, as did the columnist Bernard Levin,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">decrying in the London Times at the start of the 1980s the notion of a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"responsible press": "We are, and must remain, vagabonds and outlaws, for<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">only by so remaining shall we be able to keep the faith by which we live,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">which is the pursuit of knowledge that others would like unpursued and the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">making of comment that others would prefer unmade."<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">But of course, most publishers and journalists are not vagabonds and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">outlaws, any more than are the profs at journalism schools or the jurors<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and "boards" servicing the racket known as the Pulitzer industry. What the publishers were after was a 20 percent rate of return, a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">desire that prompts great respect for "the rule of law," if such laws<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">assist in the achievement of that goal. In 1970, this meant coercing<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Congress to pass the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970, exempting<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">newspapers from antitrust sanctions against price-fixing in a given market.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Nixon signed the law and was duly rewarded with profuse editorial<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">endorsements in 1972.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The early and mid-1970s saw a brief flare-up of investigative zeal, but not<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">long after Nixon had been sent packing, Katharine Graham, boss of the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Washington Post Company, used the occasion of the annual meeting of the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Newspaper Publishers Association to issue a public warning to reporters not<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to get any uppity ideas about shining too intrusive a searchlight on the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">way the system works: "The press these days should ... be rather careful<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">about its role. ... We had better not yield to the temptation to ... see<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">conspiracy and cover-up where they do not exist."<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Who wanted ugly talk about conspiracy and cover-up when there were<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">broadcasting licenses to be OK'd by the FCC, postage rates to be rewritten<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and laws to be drafted, such as communications "reform" in 1996.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">South of me in Mendocino County, Calif., is the Anderson Valley Advertiser,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a weekly edited by my friend Bruce Anderson. I've written a column for it<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">for over 20 years. The AVA does everything a newspaper should do. It covers<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the county board of supervisors, the court system, the cops, water issues,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the marijuana industry. It's fun to read and reminds people of what a real<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">newspaper should be, which is why half its circulation is outside the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">county, often the other end of the United States.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I asked Bruce about proposed bailouts of the mainstream press: "Do you like<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">these bailout ideas?" "No, I don't. I don't even want them to rest in<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">peace. I want them to twist and turn in their graves eternally. Why? They<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">don't do any local reporting and haven't for about 25 years. I'm talking<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">here about the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, owned by the New York Times<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Company, and the San Francisco Chronicle.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"With the drought upon us here on North Coast, the Press Democrat has yet<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to run a coherent account of how precarious our water supplies and delivery<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">systems are. Why? They might get objections from the building industry and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the wine industry on which they're almost totally dependent for advertising<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">these days.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"They don't cover the way the place is run and for whom it's run. That is,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the board of supervisors, the boards of education, the water districts —<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">all of which we regularly cover with a staff, too. The Chronicle no longer<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">serves any function. It's a museum running reprints of Herb Caen and Art<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Hoppe."<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Does this not remind you of a paper near you? Weep not for all of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">yesterday's papers, for the old Fourth Estate. The ones that deserve to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">will make it through — vagabonds and outlaws.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Alexander Cockburn is coeditor with Jeffrey St. Clair of the muckraking<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">newsletter CounterPunch. He is also co-author of the new book "Dime's Worth<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils," available through<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.counterpunch.com">www.counterpunch.com</a>. To find out more about Alexander Cockburn and read<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">features by other columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Web page at <a href="http://www.creators.com">www.creators.com</a>.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.creators.com/opinion/alexander-cockburn/who-needs-yesterday-s-papers.html">http://www.creators.com/opinion/alexander-cockburn/who-needs-yesterday-s-papers.html</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><br>-- <br>This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>believed to be clean.<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Peace-discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div><br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</body></html>