Comments on: Revenue and Circulation Down at American Newspapers, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Included

By: Bruno Wolff III

Bruno Wolff III — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:04:03 +0000

Dang, I meant to include links to the info in the last comment.
Feingold’s campaign contribution data:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?cid=N00000036
Doyle’s campaign contribution data:
http://votesmart.org/finance.php?can_id=BWI76416&fec_id=

By: Bruno Wolff III

Bruno Wolff III — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:59:06 +0000

We disagree about robo calls. If some polician robocalls me, they pretty much aren’t getting my vote. (Though I did call one back and he convinced me that it was a third party group doing the calls that he didn’t have control over and we spent some time talking about his actual position.)
The politicians are perfectly aware that people don’t want those calls (and my old phone number was on the WI do not call list, but they didn’t even care to remove those numbers) and that it is only legal because the incumbants feel it gives them an advantage. A scrupolus candidate would not use that method of contacting voters.
Also, unless you make they pay for doing it, they have no reason not to. This is similar to spamming; if a spammer happens to advertise something I might actually want, I am not going to buy the item on principle.
I suspose I could try calling Clifford at home around dinner time to give her a chance to explain why her campaign is using such sleazy tactics and give her a chance to defend her position, but I don’t see it as worth my time.
Unfortunately the campaign finance data for Feingold and Doyle come from different sources and it isn’t organized the same way.
However, at first glance it appears that Feingold gets the majority of his donations from individual contribators, while it appears that perhaps only a quarter of Doyles is in that category (assuming the unkown category is from individual contributors). This is only a rough comparison, as most corporate donations are going to be made as individual contributors who just happen to be employees of corporations who want access to a politician. It may be that a lot of Feingold’s contributors are in that category, but that data was not captured as well as for the Govener’s election. However, based on Feingold’s position on campaign financing, I expect there to be a real difference.

By: Daniel Cody

Daniel Cody — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 03:02:38 +0000

Bruno, a few things.. First off, Doyle doesn’t take “bribes” anymore than any other politician does, including Feingold. Is it right? No. Does it need to be fixed? Yes. But that’s a long way from saying Doyle is taking what are effectively bribes.

About the robo-calls, the fact is that they are legal for political campaigns and certain other groups. Some people like them and some don’t, but their use by a candidate shouldn’t be the sole deciding factor in whether or not you’d vote for that person. She’s just using the tools available to her and frankly had nothing to do with the writing or passage of that legislation.

By: Yeah Boy

Yeah Boy — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:22:57 +0000

I see your point … good thoughts.

Thanks!

By: Scott Cody

Scott Cody — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:29:46 +0000

Good point, yeah boy. Here’s what I think: when I read a newspaper I don’t just read headlines. I’ll read the headline, yes, and then I’ll check out the first few paragraphs of the story. If I find it interesting, I’ll read the whole thing. But rarely do I just read headlines.

On the internet, it’s much easier to just read the headlines. They’re all listed in one place and I can skim them. But reading the headlines does not lead to an informed person - it’s the equivalent of watching television news, you get a shallow perception of what’s going on.

What’s to stop an internet reader from actually clicking on the links and reading the stories? Nothing but pure laziness. But don’t discount just how lazy many people are.

When you sit down with a newspaper, you’re dedicating yourself to reading and learning. When you go to an internet news site, you’re not necessarily doing that. There’s always the temptation to get a quick 30-second idea of what’s happening, and then find a more entertaining site.

This reasoning definitely doesn’t apply to everyone. If a person is dedicated to finding out the news, the internet is by far the best way to do it. But reading an actual newspaper will give the average person more motivation to get more than a headline perspective.

By: Bruno Wolff III

Bruno Wolff III — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:22:26 +0000

And while some people may like being entertained by the news, I really hate the way television news is done these days as opposed to how it was done in the 60s and 70s.
It gets pretty grating watching all of the advertising of news stories that hint you’d better watch or you might die that take longer than the actual story does.
And certainly newspapers and tv give a much more procorporate version of events than you can find on the internet.

By: Yeah Boy

Yeah Boy — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:49:21 +0000

The bigger problem is that TV and the internet are generally less informative than newspapers,

Interesing thought … why do you say that? I have always thought the Internet is far more informative than TV or newspapers.

and so the public suffers as a rule.

I think the public is freed by the Internet - the truth is “out there”. There are countless examples of TV/newspaper lying (at least being inaccurate) and being exposed via the Internet. Wouldn’t you agree that is more beneficial for the public than having one source of news (ie local newspaper)?

By: Scott Cody

Scott Cody — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:11:12 +0000

While your theory might account for a number of non-readers, and probably does, newspaper readership has been on the decline since the 1960s. The drop was due to television. The decrease has become even more pronounced now with the internet.

The problem is, people want to be entertained, and the newspapers just can’t compete along those lines with television and the internet.

The bigger problem is that TV and the internet are generally less informative than newspapers, and so the public suffers as a rule.

By: Bruno Wolff III

Bruno Wolff III — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:30:00 +0000

I won’t be voting for Clifford, as her campaign left an unsolicited message on my answering machine. That is illegal for everyone but politicians and I don’t plan on letting them get away with it.
Since I don’t like Ziegler either, I’ll probably write in a vote for Sommers.

I suggest that you not hold up Doyle as a great example of a Democrat. It doesn’t help the cause. He was part of the pay to play system and don’t have any reason to believe he has stopped taking what are effectively bribes. For example, I don’t see the MSJ take potshots at Feingold (except maybe in the letters to the editor section).