I am in Ireland to address the Irish Press Council’s annual general meeting in a lecture entitled “Have newspapers got a future?”
My theme is that they have no future. Declining circulation figures tell us that people are switching week by week from print to screen. It is simply a matter of time before it becomes unprofitable to continue publishing newsprint papers.
Sales aside, the main problem has been the gradual retreat by the major funders of the press: advertisers. Publishers of local and regional titles have been facing that drama for several years. Nationals, however, have done better... until now.
The news that one of the strongest publishing companies, Daily Mail & General Trust, had to issue a warning to investors after its newspaper division reported a 29% fall in profits should be seen as a landmark moment.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/may/27/suddenly-national-newspapers-are-heading-for-that-print-cliff-fallSpace in newsprint papers can be filled. The end result is something that looks like a paper, but the content lacks any real value. It is not journalism. It is pointless material without any public benefit.
Keep in mind the scenario outlined by Nick Davies in Flat Earth News about “churnalism”, a mixture of agency stories and PR-generated “oven-ready copy”. It will get much worse as newsroom numbers are reduced.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/10/national-daily-newspapers-lose-more-than-half-a-million-readers-in-past-yearSun records drop in circulation of 10%, with Guardian reporting biggest fall among quality titles and a 10% average decline across all Sunday titles
But the implication that it's about the colour of one's passport is erroneous. Walsh has always had a thing for doctors. Call it a faith in a form of pseudoscience. If doctors tell him something is good, he wants to believe in their goodness.Digger said:Floyd's words on Walsh now being in the marijuana business are perfect.
you wrote a piece a good bit ago along the lines of walsh hasn't changed in his stance on sky - it was actually his stance on lance which was the exception - you then went through walsh's pieces from the time of Kelly testing positive to now. Was an eye opener and well worth a read.fmk_RoI said:But the implication that it's about the colour of one's passport is erroneous. Walsh has always had a thing for doctors. Call it a faith in a form of pseudoscience. If doctors tell him something is good, he wants to believe in their goodness.Digger said:Floyd's words on Walsh now being in the marijuana business are perfect.
That was not about Sky. It was written before The Fall, when people round here turned on anyone who criticised Walsh and accused them of being a stooge for Lance Armstrong.Digger said:you wrote a piece a good bit ago along the lines of walsh hasn't changed in his stance on sky - it was actually his stance on lance which was the exception
Now thats a good piece. Especially because it was written in 2010.fmk_RoI said:http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/11/10/1805511/on-doping-and-david-walshluckyboy said:Can I get a link to that?
Fraudulous? Inequivocally? I guess now we know what George Bush is up to.sniper said:Ross Tucker now with a response to an email from Syed.
Absolutely brilliant from Ross.
Subtly exposing Syed as a fraudulous soldout cheerleader, without using those words of course, but inequivocally nonetheless.
Syed getting his pants pulled down.
Knock out in the second round.
it's a good question.fmk_RoI said:Question: what's the take on journalists writing rider's autobiographies and still commenting on that rider? Some who do write these books make a thing of not talking about that rider, others have no such qualms. Should they have to disclose their relationship whenever they write about the rider?
No. This - "both sides are equal" stuff won't fly here.fmk_RoI said:You know, there is cheerleading on both sides of the debate. It's just that we tend to overlook the cheerleaders in our own ranks.
They are obliged to tell us their "stories", describing how they made these massive improvements due to "marginal gains", and advances in sports science in general, and because they just want it more than the other guys. And they are probably astonished that grown-up people are actually believing this stuff, or that they want to believe it, not all of them, but enough of them to sustain the notion that yes, it's all about "marginal gains" and advances in sports science and wanting it more than the other guys.