By: Jeremy_Wells

Jeremy_Wells — Tue, 02 May 2006 18:16:51 +0000

staff writers don’t make any more or less money from any stories they write. In all my years in newspapers, I got paid the same hourly rate for my eight+ hours a day whether I was able to produce 2 stories or 12 (of course, my eidtors were always happier with more)
More than “media” being out for money (which is certainly the case for the corporate headquarters, but that is mostly advertising revenue and only impacts reporters when it cuts into their space for a story and they have to cut verbiage to make room for ad copy) the problem with newspapers is that a reporter gets an assignment on Monday, and has to have copy ready by Tuesday COB (close of business) so that it can run in Wednesday’s edition.
When you add this limited time frame to do research with the other responsibilities the reporter may have (covering city council, doing page lay-out, etc.), the limited space requirements they are working with (see the advertiser/reporter space conflict referenced above), and the general “silly season” dismissal cryptid stories recieve from the newsroom and readership at large, and it generally equals up to less than scholarly reading.
Newspapers are great for local news. But, other than weekend features that a reporter may plan and work on for several weeks, they are not so good for in-depth analysis.

By: greywolf

greywolf — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 14:04:33 +0000

Well Loren the facts are the press (ie) reporters looking for something to write about to make MONEY…and they jump in with both feet and do not check facts first.

Comments on: Media Watch: Wallace Again, Wrong Again

By: Jeremy_Wells

By: greywolf