see more pwn and owned pictures

SOME OF YOU READERS MAY THINK THE ABOVE PICTURE IS RATHER IRRELEVANT ON THE POINT I AM ABOUT TO ADDRESS, by way of the ConWebBlog:

The Media Research Center continues its tunnel-vision interpretation of the state of the newspaper industry with a Nov. 21 NewsBusters post by Tom Blumer, who chortles at the declining value of New York Times Co. stock (he denigrates the Times as "Manhattan's quaint little alternative newspaper"), accuses the Times of "insufferable bias," then claims: "Yours truly and many others saw deep trouble ahead for the Times as early as the summer of 2005 if the paper didn't stop its Bush-deranged, standards-compromised march towards the cliff."

What "yours truly" is referring to is a post by Blumer on his BizzyBlog in which he rants against the Times for covering the leak of Valerie Plame's identity by Bush administration officials, which Blumer designated as "Nadagate," "non-scandal about which I refuse to blog in detail" with "main players, whose full names I refuse to type. It appears obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury is "nada," as far as Blumer is concerned.

Nowhere in either post note what actual media analysts do when discussing declining newspaper circulation: the paradigm shift from print to online and the growing commoditization of news.

Blumer's suggestion that the Times' problems are solely attributable to its alleged liberal bias is a politically motivated interpretation unsupported by the facts.

Which raises the question: If, as conservative illogic suggests, the Mainstream Media is in decline because of "liberal bias," are we to follow, therefore, that the conservative media is now in the ascendency?

If so, which conservative media outlets are showing consistent and healthy gains in circulation and advertising revenue year on year, based on audited circulation or viewership figures as the case may be?

And how many of these conservative media outlets have substantial audience numbers in lower-income, economically-disadvantaged or otherwise "white trash" neighbourhods best described as "culturally-deprived environments"? Is their appeal in such areas largely because of an unhealthy emphasis on quasi-pornography and appeals to jingoistic patriotism?

Are those involved with these conservative media outlets (un)consciously (un)aware that their core audience is comprised mostly of the vulnerable, the ignorant and the psychoemotionally unstable as may take its content way too literally--especially if such involves "calls to action" bordering on mayhem, civil disorder and violence?

We await your answers. And you can leave them in the comments section, so long as they are tasteful and respectful. 

Sphere: Related Content • Advertise Here • Seed This • Discuss on Newsvine • Share on Facebook • Digg This! • outside.in: geotag this story • Technorati Links • Blog This On Yahoo! 360 • Save to del.icio.us • Fark It • Bookmark with OnlyWire • Add to Technorati Favorites! • Email this • Subscribe to this feed • Powered By FeedBurner • Bookmark/Share • Add This!