Is there any metric that tells us how many people change their thinking because they have read something that Andrew Malcom wrote? I understand that a guy like that can get the already not-terribly-adept-at-critical-thinking to deepen their already deep trances. But how many new trances can he induce in those who are not already hypnotized? There ought to be a metric to measure how many people who had been respectful of Obama to change their minds decide that he is nothing more than the Smoker in Chief, with this change attributable to Andrew Malcom convincing them that their former opinion was wrong and his opinion is right. Is there such a metric?
I’m stuck with the Denver Post after the Rocky Mountain News folded. We have a lifetime sub. as my better half’s dad retired from there, so we can’t really lose the memory… Anyway, I’ll stack my rickety stable of third-rate hacks and manure-shovelers against yours any day, buddy. Bring ‘em on. The trip through the paper is very fast most mornings, let me tell you. Complaining about a non-print blogger is he? I got yer blogger and I’ll…um…ahem.
I’m going to guess that there are more LA Times subscribers who would drop, or stop eyeballing the paper if the Malcolm perspective were not there, than there are people who wouldn’t eyeball Slate if it were lacking Noah. Noah also will still be putting pieces into Slate, Slate has moved him to freelance status from salaried status. Politico said: “Timothy Noah, author of Slate’s “Chatterbox” column, confirmed that he was one of the four editorial staffers laid off, and will now become a nonstaff “contributing writer.” He’s been on book leave since April writing a book about income inequality, based on a series he wrote last year for Slate..”
I hope it’s just a matter of time before the Tribune sells the LAT and we get a clean sweep in there. I’m sorry to say it but there are a whole lot of people at the LAT who maybe ought to lose their jobs. Like, the entire editorial section.
The LAT also does a cr*p job of covering labor issues — a reminder of the old days. Apparently there’s a big port strike up north and they don’t seem to have printed boo about it. The Verizon strike was barely covered too. I don’t even know if these strikes are still going. The word that comes to mind is … mediocre.
But all we need is some rich person who wants a paper as a hobby … as long as s/he mostly goes fishing and lets the pros run it.
Is there any metric that tells us how many people change their thinking because they have read something that Andrew Malcom wrote? I understand that a guy like that can get the already not-terribly-adept-at-critical-thinking to deepen their already deep trances. But how many new trances can he induce in those who are not already hypnotized? There ought to be a metric to measure how many people who had been respectful of Obama to change their minds decide that he is nothing more than the Smoker in Chief, with this change attributable to Andrew Malcom convincing them that their former opinion was wrong and his opinion is right. Is there such a metric?
I’m stuck with the Denver Post after the Rocky Mountain News folded. We have a lifetime sub. as my better half’s dad retired from there, so we can’t really lose the memory… Anyway, I’ll stack my rickety stable of third-rate hacks and manure-shovelers against yours any day, buddy. Bring ‘em on. The trip through the paper is very fast most mornings, let me tell you. Complaining about a non-print blogger is he? I got yer blogger and I’ll…um…ahem.
I’m going to guess that there are more LA Times subscribers who would drop, or stop eyeballing the paper if the Malcolm perspective were not there, than there are people who wouldn’t eyeball Slate if it were lacking Noah. Noah also will still be putting pieces into Slate, Slate has moved him to freelance status from salaried status. Politico said: “Timothy Noah, author of Slate’s “Chatterbox” column, confirmed that he was one of the four editorial staffers laid off, and will now become a nonstaff “contributing writer.” He’s been on book leave since April writing a book about income inequality, based on a series he wrote last year for Slate..”
I canceled my subscription to the LAT when they quit publishing Bob Scheer and started publishing Jonah Goldberg.
I hope it’s just a matter of time before the Tribune sells the LAT and we get a clean sweep in there. I’m sorry to say it but there are a whole lot of people at the LAT who maybe ought to lose their jobs. Like, the entire editorial section.
The LAT also does a cr*p job of covering labor issues — a reminder of the old days. Apparently there’s a big port strike up north and they don’t seem to have printed boo about it. The Verizon strike was barely covered too. I don’t even know if these strikes are still going. The word that comes to mind is … mediocre.
But all we need is some rich person who wants a paper as a hobby … as long as s/he mostly goes fishing and lets the pros run it.
I realize you don’t like the guy’s politics. And who knows if he writes his own heds. But you’ve got to admit this one is zippy:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/obama-jobs-speech-congress-bad-news-polls-.html