Loading...

"Breaking story after story, two great American newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, are resurgent, with record readerships." - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title "Breaking story after story, two great American newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, are resurgent, with record readerships.", we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : "Breaking story after story, two great American newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, are resurgent, with record readerships."
link : "Breaking story after story, two great American newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, are resurgent, with record readerships."

"Breaking story after story, two great American newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, are resurgent, with record readerships."

"One has greater global reach and fifth-generation family ownership; the other has Jeff Bezos as its deep-pocketed proprietor and a technological advantage. Both, however, still face an existential foe."

James Warren (in Vanity Fair).

What's the "existential foe"?

But an existential threat is... many Americans won’t believe a thing either newspaper says, no matter how great the accuracy, attention to detail, or fair-mindedness. The sharp uptick in Times and Post readership may obscure a larger cultural change. The unequivocal evidence* of Russian involvement in the presidential campaign exemplifies the state of play. In June, a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll showed that more than half of those surveyed believe that the Russians interfered in the presidential election, with about one-third believing it influenced the outcome, and more Americans buying Comey’s explanation of his dismissal than Trump’s. But half think the press has been overly dramatic and irresponsible in its Russia-related coverage, with two-thirds of Republicans simply not believing that the Russians interfered at all, despite evidence assessed by four different U.S. intelligence services. Dig deeper and you find that, while 89 percent of Democrats believe in the importance of the media’s “watchdog” role, only 42 percent of Republicans do, according to the Pew Research Center. It is the widest gap that Pew has ever seen. What’s astonishing is that in early 2016, according to Pew, Democrats and Republicans essentially agreed on the role of the press, with Republicans (77 percent) actually outpacing Democrats (74 percent) in their support.

No link to that Pew poll. I'm not "astonished" by the degradation in confidence over that short period of time, because you're comparing the idea of "the role of the press" to our response to a particular performance in that role.  If you polled people about whether Hamlet is a great role and got almost everyone to say yes and then, a year later, a movie came out with Adam Sandler as Hamlet and a poll showed very few people considered it a performance, it wouldn't mean that respect for the role of Hamlet had diminished in that time period.
__________________

* What "unequivocal evidence"?! Or... oh, well, I guess I'm the existential foe, an American who's not believing what you say. But my skepticism isn't insensitive to accuracy, attention to detail, and fair-mindedness. I'm looking at your words, what they mean, what evidence you proffer, and trying to put it all together and see if it adds up. I notice where you slide along and I stop and ask why you're doing that. Yet I'm the foe. Or a subpart of The Foe which is the agglomeration of suspicious people like me.

"One has greater global reach and fifth-generation family ownership; the other has Jeff Bezos as its deep-pocketed proprietor and a technological advantage. Both, however, still face an existential foe."

James Warren (in Vanity Fair).

What's the "existential foe"?

But an existential threat is... many Americans won’t believe a thing either newspaper says, no matter how great the accuracy, attention to detail, or fair-mindedness. The sharp uptick in Times and Post readership may obscure a larger cultural change. The unequivocal evidence* of Russian involvement in the presidential campaign exemplifies the state of play. In June, a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll showed that more than half of those surveyed believe that the Russians interfered in the presidential election, with about one-third believing it influenced the outcome, and more Americans buying Comey’s explanation of his dismissal than Trump’s. But half think the press has been overly dramatic and irresponsible in its Russia-related coverage, with two-thirds of Republicans simply not believing that the Russians interfered at all, despite evidence assessed by four different U.S. intelligence services. Dig deeper and you find that, while 89 percent of Democrats believe in the importance of the media’s “watchdog” role, only 42 percent of Republicans do, according to the Pew Research Center. It is the widest gap that Pew has ever seen. What’s astonishing is

Loading...

that in early 2016, according to Pew, Democrats and Republicans essentially agreed on the role of the press, with Republicans (77 percent) actually outpacing Democrats (74 percent) in their support. No link to that Pew poll. I'm not "astonished" by the degradation in confidence over that short period of time, because you're comparing the idea of "the role of the press" to our response to a particular performance in that role.  If you polled people about whether Hamlet is a great role and got almost everyone to say yes and then, a year later, a movie came out with Adam Sandler as Hamlet and a poll showed very few people considered it a performance, it wouldn't mean that respect for the role of Hamlet had diminished in that time period.
__________________

* What "unequivocal evidence"?! Or... oh, well, I guess I'm the existential foe, an American who's not believing what you say. But my skepticism isn't insensitive to accuracy, attention to detail, and fair-mindedness. I'm looking at your words, what they mean, what evidence you proffer, and trying to put it all together and see if it adds up. I notice where you slide along and I stop and ask why you're doing that. Yet I'm the foe. Or a subpart of The Foe which is the agglomeration of suspicious people like me.

Thus articles "Breaking story after story, two great American newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, are resurgent, with record readerships."

that is all articles "Breaking story after story, two great American newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, are resurgent, with record readerships." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article "Breaking story after story, two great American newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, are resurgent, with record readerships." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2017/07/breaking-story-after-story-two-great.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: