tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6514745.post3497267222267319133..comments2023-12-31T06:41:45.412-08:00Comments on Gary Robert Scott: Gary Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05164233287474327699noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6514745.post-35412931148759099242008-07-23T15:47:00.000-07:002008-07-23T15:47:00.000-07:00Maybe I'm just jaded but who the heck doesn't have...Maybe I'm just jaded but who the heck doesn't have a voice these days? Even animals have advocates. The fuzzy liberal notion that newspapers are a forum for those who have none otherwise is hardly accurate now. Perhaps it never was. On the web you have everybody's interests represented, from radical vegans to neofascists. A better model for what newspapers really are is a representative for the interests of those people who would patronize the publication's advertisers. In a modern capitalist society, when newspapers take points of view or advocate positions opposed to that group, they lose business and are therefore quite loath to do so. While I too bemoan the loss of a "public square" role for newspapers, I realize that the loss of influence across the board applies as much to the opportunistic, lazy, greedy, racist or reactionary publications as it does to those with high moral purpose and strong ethics. In my opinion, it's a wash. Good luck to all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com