The New York Times Company, the parent of The New York Times, posted a $335,000 loss in the first quarter — one of the worst periods the company and the newspaper industry have seen — falling far short of both analysts’ expectations and its $23.9 million profit in the quarter a year earlier.Yes, the old "Authorized Journalist" media must adapt to the online age and the competition from alternative outlets that give people information and opinion previously barred by the gatekeepers. And the economy-stifling socialist policies The Times endorses don't help stimulate revenues either.
But ultimately, it's about delivering information, and the perception and reality of bias eroding trust and driving people away can't be ignored. Not if they want to survive.
We just saw an attempt at fair play, as lopsided as it may have been, but at least "our" message--mine and the overwhelmingly supportive comment posters'--was given a forum to reach a much broader audience.
That was a start. But it was just their blog. The paper itself, what the guy on the street will see, or a casual visitor to their main website, remains out of our reach.
Many of you had some pretty positive and enthusiastic things to say about Wednesday's Virgina Tech panel posts. Telling me is appreciated, but how many of you have since contacted The Times and let them know you liked it, and that you'd read them more often if they presented more opportunities for RKBA advocates to tell our side of the story?
It's basic supply-and-demand. Let them know there's a demand.
6 comments:
"'Die! Die! Die!" he shouted hatefully through clenched teeth as he plunged the sharpened stake repeatedly into the hissing, old vampire's chest, while thick gouts of black blood spurted onto the white knuckles of his pale hands."
So, you think that maybe the vampires should just be a little more balanced and improve their website? That's exactly what they hope you'll think. You're being co-opted.
Oh now that's just plain offensive and uncalled for.
No, I think the side of liberty should exploit all the large transmission stations it can get its hands on to generate more market demand for our message--and with demand, there will be incentive for a supply, with competition among the suppliers over who can provide it--and with those who can't going extinct.
I'm talking using their resources to promote our agenda. If that's me being co-opted, I guess I need to just quit now and let you take over and show me how it's done.
David, what you have done is akin to an unarmed population, ambushing and taking the weapons of the enemy to use against that enemy.
It is sound policy to do so when denied any other access to the materiels necessary to sustain liberty.
It matters not what the NYT's intentions are or were, the fact that they became a tool in our hands for the dissemination of our message is success.
If anybody was co-opted, it would be they, even if their intentions ran counter.
Perhaps cbar10 is just frustrated from the long stuggle.
I think it was a dam good thing you did and I support it all the way. To use the enemy's own weapons against them is better then no weapon at all. I had not thought of writing them to compliment them and attempt to use them for our cause, it holds promise.
I just wish they had invited a more equal siding to the debate. One against 7 is just was not fair to the poor anti gunners. Should have been maybe 1- 100 to make it more equal toward their side
I think it's wrong to partner in any way with the enemy. The NYT has done deliberate harm to our gun rights for decades. IMHO they are irredeemable. If you want to argue practicality over morality that's a valid argument to make; I just don't agree with it.
I'm glad to see that newspaper is on the ropes and I'd be much gladder to see them out of business. Helping them to make money and stay in business, however slightly, is distasteful to me.
I agree wholeheartedly with your pro-gun rights message, and as far as I'm concerned, the tough choices you have to make to get it out are yours and I'm glad I don't have to make them. Thanks for your work on behalf of our gun rights!
I don't see that being the argument at all. If the vampire is ready to be slain in one stroke of the stake, as your first comment suggests,that's one thing. But that's not the case. They will be around in some form for the foreseeable future, so exploiting their--and other mass media resources to spread our message and be able to persuade a larger audience in no way represents a moral trade-off.
Right now, no major media source does this on a regular basis. They don't because, being "liberal" notwithstanding, their thinking is quite "conservative"--that is, locked into old patterns.
Let me give ananalogy: When George Lucas first tried to sell "Star Wars," he had a difficult time persuading any studio investors--to where the project almost never happened. It was only after the first film was such a hit that others perceived a market demand. Then it seems there was almost no limit on knock-off space opera attempts from all over--movies and TV--until such fare became pervasive, and has done nothing but grow.
I believe a hunger--and resultant market demand for freedom--could manifest itself in a similar fashion--to where once hostile or indifferent outlets woud be trying to get in on it.
The only way our side would be "co-opted" is if our message changed to accommodate the opposition--which is admittedly a danger--look at all the "false prophets" out there now--from the blatantly obvious AHSA--to others more subtle. That's actually my biggest fear--I doubt anyone in a position of influence would select me to be a messenger--I'm simply too radical. Not only do the antis find my stuff distatsteful, so do most with any kind of reach in the "RKBA" community. Hell, most "gun blogs" don't even link to WoG, and I don't see that changing.
But I just don't see how not availing ourselves of opportunities when they arise in the name of "purity of association" would serve us any better than a closed-door circle jerk society.
If we don't grow, we die. If we don't get new people to stick their toes into the pool, we'll never develop a new generation of swimmers who can go farther, faster and deeper.
Perhaps this is all idle and fruitless fantasy anyway. But if there's a chance to try something new, who will bring more value to our movement--people out there engaging, or people dismissing it outright before even trying, and recommending strangling the effort in its crib?
Give me a realistic alternative and I'm all ears.
Post a Comment