![](\"http:\/\/cyber.law.harvard.edu\/blogs\/static\/dowbrigade\/rubberbow.jpg\")
The increasing centralization of media outlets in the
\n United States is nowhere more apparent than in the traditional powerhouse
\n of
\n American Journalism, the daily newspapers. Whereas most major cities
\n once had 4 or 5 independent dailies, now most are luck to have two papers,
\n which probably belong to corporate chains. Between them, the Gannett
\n Co., Knight-Ridder and Rupert Murdock own thousands of papers. <\/p>\n
This drama is being played out on a local stage in the ongoing soap Now the New York Times syndicate wants to expand the happy family by Meanwhile, cross-town rival the Boston Actually, almost all daily newspapers are supported chiefly by advertising. Our So this media conglomerate has effectively cornering the highbrow Where is our free choice of newspaper POV? Where is our journalistic smorgasbord? We all know the answer The increasing centralization of media outlets in the United States is nowhere more apparent than in the traditional powerhouse of American Journalism, the daily newspapers. Whereas most major cities once had 4 or 5 independent dailies, now most are luck … Continue reading
\n opera in which longtime East Coast old-media heavyweights
\n and eternal
\n rivals the Boston Globe<\/a> and
\n the New
\n York Times<\/a>, a sort of journalistic
\n Red Sox – Yankees, buried the hatchet and arrived at an incestuous marriage
\n of
\n convenience.
\n Basically,
\n the
\n Times bought the Globe from the Taylor family, finally closing
\n the corporate door behind what had been the last of the privately held,
\n family-owned major media outlets. While the corporate suits swore complete
\n editorial autonomy for the Globe, and the article in the posting above proves the
\n subsidiary product can occasionally surpass that of the home office,
\n we all knew the Boston Globe was the Gray Lady’s bitch from that point
\n on.<\/p>\n
\n adopting idiot bastard son "The Metro",<\/em> a daily
\n tabloid-style paper distributed free on the subway. The Metro, unfortunately,
\n is a real newspaper, part of a chain which claims 14 million readers
\n every day in 40 cities in 16 countries worldwide, supported completely
\n by advertising.
\n Some of the writing is actually decent, and a lot of it is locally produced, although
\n the whole idea of boiling the
\n world
\n down to an entertaining 15-minute read is somehow intellectually insulting, like getting
\n an intelligence briefing from Paris Hilton. The Times
\n proposes buying 49 % <\/a>of the local operation, a move made marginally
\n more difficult by the reportedly liberal
\n use of racial slurs including the "N" word by Metro executives<\/a> at
\n European conferences, which may play in Prague but doesn’t tend to go
\n over big in the People’s Republic
\n by the Charles. There is even a porno
\n angle<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\n Herald<\/a> has written the justice
\n department a whiny letter in protest and the Feds are "investigating". The Herald has
\n been flagging lately, and has been offering itself at half-price, trying
\n to simultaneously compete with the Globe on the upper end and the Metro
\n on the lower. The idea that their competition are joining forces
\n has them shitting bricks.<\/p>\n
\n students are always dumbfounded the first time we go through a copy
\n of the Globe and we ask them how much they think it costs to produce
\n and distribute each copy of the paper. Guesses range from ten cents
\n to 45 cents (considering they get back 50 cents). The actual figure is about
\n $1.85. When I ask them straight out how a company can produce something
\n for $1.85 and sell it for $.50, the light usually goes on in at least one kid’s
\n head and he or she shouts out "Advertising!".<\/em><\/p>\n
\n market and the subterranean levels of news distribution in
\n Metro Boston, leaving the middle ground to the Boston
\n Herald <\/a>and the
\n near majority of the population who don’t even read a paper daily, get
\n their news from some other source, or simply don’t give a shit.<\/p>\n
\n Where is good old fashioned reporting rivalry, digging for the scoop,
\n columnists with distinctive voices carping back and forth? Where is the
\n balls-on prose and the thought-provoking opinion? Where is the vital heart of American journalism today?<\/p>\n
\n to that one, don’t we?\n <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"