That's a more acceptable, reasonable and rationed argument than most I've heard for anti-hate-crime legislation. I have more problems with it than the one's I've listed above (exactly who is supposed to receive the protection, what real effect it's supposed to have on hate crime, the frequency of individuals who support it not being in support of stronger anti-terrorism laws), but that is a sufficiently effective reasoning that I can see the purpose in bringing up the topic of such legislation in this context. Zomg Eric concedes point ^.~
The media point...well...newspapers don't have good cause to care that folks are offended, particularly when it's not their main readers. Your last point is spot-on in a lot of ways. It doesn't hurt the odds of the HT staying afloat if someone who isn't a subscriber or really even in their main target audience is ticked. Most college and grad students...as well as a good number of the more liberal folks in town (those who would be the absolute most offended by media blackout)...aren't really of importance to them. Those people either seek alternate media sources, use teh intrawebs or do something else that is not paying a paperboy. More importantly, because of this lack of subscriptions, the HT has to look at what this will do for its advertising; the largest source of its wealth. It could lose sponsors publishing an even slightly inaccurate or biased story for any variety of reasons. Churches are not uncommon advertisers with them, for example (so are Masons for that matter). If you've heard of this, it's likely that you look at alternative media a lot...which probably means you don't have a ton of interest in the HT...which means it's not really worth it to them to tick off their regulars (or advertisers) for you. While some kind folks might respond to better coverage by supporting the paper with monies, most won't. They like their internet news and alternative sources. But newspapers just can't afford to try to cater to those people over thier regulars. Activism doesn't help nearly as much as dollars do. This isn't meant at all as a personal criticism or anything...I just tend to rush to the defense of the media because it's often much more helpless to solve some of its problems than people believe.
I am a bit surprised that bigger papers like the Star or even the Tribune haven't picked up on this though. I guess the Tribune is a bit far away and the Star...well it does just blow.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
yati
no subject
Date: 2007-06-22 07:08 am (UTC)That's a more acceptable, reasonable and rationed argument than most I've heard for anti-hate-crime legislation. I have more problems with it than the one's I've listed above (exactly who is supposed to receive the protection, what real effect it's supposed to have on hate crime, the frequency of individuals who support it not being in support of stronger anti-terrorism laws), but that is a sufficiently effective reasoning that I can see the purpose in bringing up the topic of such legislation in this context. Zomg Eric concedes point ^.~
The media point...well...newspapers don't have good cause to care that folks are offended, particularly when it's not their main readers. Your last point is spot-on in a lot of ways. It doesn't hurt the odds of the HT staying afloat if someone who isn't a subscriber or really even in their main target audience is ticked. Most college and grad students...as well as a good number of the more liberal folks in town (those who would be the absolute most offended by media blackout)...aren't really of importance to them. Those people either seek alternate media sources, use teh intrawebs or do something else that is not paying a paperboy. More importantly, because of this lack of subscriptions, the HT has to look at what this will do for its advertising; the largest source of its wealth. It could lose sponsors publishing an even slightly inaccurate or biased story for any variety of reasons. Churches are not uncommon advertisers with them, for example (so are Masons for that matter). If you've heard of this, it's likely that you look at alternative media a lot...which probably means you don't have a ton of interest in the HT...which means it's not really worth it to them to tick off their regulars (or advertisers) for you. While some kind folks might respond to better coverage by supporting the paper with monies, most won't. They like their internet news and alternative sources. But newspapers just can't afford to try to cater to those people over thier regulars. Activism doesn't help nearly as much as dollars do. This isn't meant at all as a personal criticism or anything...I just tend to rush to the defense of the media because it's often much more helpless to solve some of its problems than people believe.
I am a bit surprised that bigger papers like the Star or even the Tribune haven't picked up on this though. I guess the Tribune is a bit far away and the Star...well it does just blow.