3 ms·

> instead, it was bulk purchases by hotels and other places with lobbies that fueled the business. When I was a kid I actually would read the newspaper every m

> instead, it was bulk purchases by hotels and other places with lobbies that fueled the business. When I was a kid I actually would read the newspaper every morning, though mostly I was just looking at box scores. I do distinctly remember getting USA Today when we went on vacation. If you’ll forgive my ramble, one other thing I remember now was my parents always complaining about the quality of the newspaper. We moved around a lot, and they really missed things like the New York Times, which I suppose was too expensive to get so far from New York. When I was a kid, I couldn’t understand why one news paper would be better than another, I think I thought it was the quality of the writing. But we’re my parents really complaining about the political slant of Midwestern papers? Did people care about that in the 90s? The lack of investigative journalism? I’ll have to ask them next time I call.

wolverine876 5y ago
It would be an impossible coincidence if all newspapers were of the same quality, however you define quality. USA Today and the NY Times are news for different purposes: I think USA Today is (or was, last I read it, ~5-10 years ago) underrated. They did some important investigative reporting and good journalism, and while they can lack depth in their short, digestible format (which is their intention, per distant memory), they also can be more succinct, which is a good thing. I thought the lack of depth was a real limitation, but I thought they also suffered from projecting themselves as a simple, easy (my words, maybe imperfect) source of information: People looking for the best information don't associate it with simple and easy. The NY Times addresses serious topics in much greater breadth, depth, and sophistication, and their investigative reporting is unparalleled (and taken for granted - if you step back and look at the stories they've broken, and think of what the world would look like without those stories, it's astounding). Certainly it has its flaws, including IMHO sometimes long-windedness - rarely do I wish an article was longer! You mentioned the NY Times but it has peers, IMHO, in the Financial Times and, to a degree, the Washington Post.
hedora 5y ago
The 90s was the beginning of the collapse of journalism in the US. Media ownership laws were relaxed, and some of the bigger players were acquired, leading to layoffs of “redundant” journalists, and their replacement with partisan shills. Soon craigslist popped up and destroyed the market for classified ads (which used to be the primary source of revenue for local papers). Free internet news didn’t help either. Since then, more and more ownership rules and things like the equal time doctrine (if you let one politician on the air, you need to let their opponent on as well) were eliminated.
- will4274 5y ago
  Equal time never applied to newspapers, and the broadcasters began relabeling their news content as entertainment ("infotainment") so the rule did not apply all the way back during Reagan.
Spooky23 5y ago
The Sunday NY Times of the 90s was like a science project. The thing was about 4 inches thick. No other paper was like that.

wolverine876 5y ago

It would be an impossible coincidence if all newspapers were of the same quality, however you define quality. USA Today and the NY Times are news for different purposes: I think USA Today is (or was, last I read it, ~5-10 years ago) underrated. They did some important investigative reporting and good journalism, and while they can lack depth in their short, digestible format (which is their intention, per distant memory), they also can be more succinct, which is a good thing. I thought the lack of depth was a real limitation, but I thought they also suffered from projecting themselves as a simple, easy (my words, maybe imperfect) source of information: People looking for the best information don't associate it with simple and easy. The NY Times addresses serious topics in much greater breadth, depth, and sophistication, and their investigative reporting is unparalleled (and taken for granted - if you step back and look at the stories they've broken, and think of what the world would look like without those stories, it's astounding). Certainly it has its flaws, including IMHO sometimes long-windedness - rarely do I wish an article was longer! You mentioned the NY Times but it has peers, IMHO, in the Financial Times and, to a degree, the Washington Post.

hedora 5y ago

The 90s was the beginning of the collapse of journalism in the US. Media ownership laws were relaxed, and some of the bigger players were acquired, leading to layoffs of “redundant” journalists, and their replacement with partisan shills. Soon craigslist popped up and destroyed the market for classified ads (which used to be the primary source of revenue for local papers). Free internet news didn’t help either. Since then, more and more ownership rules and things like the equal time doctrine (if you let one politician on the air, you need to let their opponent on as well) were eliminated.

will4274 5y ago
Equal time never applied to newspapers, and the broadcasters began relabeling their news content as entertainment ("infotainment") so the rule did not apply all the way back during Reagan.

Spooky23 5y ago

The Sunday NY Times of the 90s was like a science project. The thing was about 4 inches thick. No other paper was like that.