The Liberal media is dying off. From fake documents to faked pictures to faked stories of US atrocities in Iraq it has been dying because it sold its credibility – its soul if you will – for political purposes. I mentioned the other day that the Chicken Littles in the news media were out running around screaming “Great Depression”, and where in fact simply reflecting their own little shriveling market niche – which is economically depressed. News media organizations are seeing shrinking circulation, advertising and staffs. Check out this Great Depression in the news media business:

The state of the American news media in 2008 is more troubled than a year ago.

And the problems, increasingly, appear to be different than many experts have predicted.

…

In broad terms, the fundamental trends transforming how people acquire news continued in the last year. More effort keeps shifting toward processing information and away from original reporting. Fewer people are being asked to do more, and the era of reporters operating in multimedia has finally arrived. In newspapers, and to lesser extent in network television, an expanding list of buyouts and layoffs in 2007 was expected to grow further in 2008 — in some cases even at online organizations.

…

All these pressures were again at play in what happened in 2007 to newspapers. Circulation fell at about the same rate as in the two previous years — down 2.5 % daily and 3.5 % Sunday, for the six months ending September 30 compared with same period a year earlier, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Since 2001, newspapers have dropped 8.4% in daily circulation and 11.4% in Sunday circulation.

…

f you add in the unduplicated audience of a newspaper’s Web site (people who do not also read the print edition), which typically is growing at a healthy rate, you get a picture of the “Total Audience” for newspaper organizations growing, not declining.

The story in network television news was one of more straightforward decline. For the nightly newscasts, the total number of viewers fell again in 2007 — by 4.9%, or 1.2 million viewers — to 23.1 million viewers each evening on average. For the past 25 years, the programs have lost roughly one million viewers a year.

…

The figures for 2007 show another rough year for newspapers, and an even worse one expected in 2008. Advertising revenues fell by an average of more than 5%. Hardest hit has been classified, most of all employment. In 2007 alone, job ads were down 20%.

…

The stock prices for newspapers for the year fell 42%, after drops of 11% and 20% the two previous years. The markets are not bullish on the industry’s future.

So why is all this happening? The report I linked to is full of speculation and rationalizations, but I think the answer is obvious: you produce a crappy product and no one wants to buy it. How many times does the news media have to be caught lying to their customers before they realize it is killing them? Who knows – but it happened again with these exaggerated claims about depressions, recessions and food stamps. Especially food stamps where the mantra this week is so many people are on food stamps! America is on the skids! Oh the humanity!!

Well, it turns out there were a higher percentage of Americans where on food stamps in the Clinton years than in the Bush years:

Scary headline in Monday’s Times: “As Jobs Vanish And Prices Rise, Food Stamp Use Nears Record.” Scarier headline in Britain’s Independent: “USA 2008: The Great Depression.”
Why didn’t the Times editors just say: “Economy In Shambles — It’s All Bush’s Fault”? Or the Independent condemn the president for his war on the poor?

…

Take the headline “Food Stamp Use Nears Record,” which is only partially accurate. True, the 28 million Americans who will use food stamps in 2008 is the highest number ever. But that raw number is a poor measure; it doesn’t provide context.

What’s relevant is the percentage of the population that’s on food stamps. And the worst years there are 1993, 1994 and 1995.

Yes, it was during the second Camelot presidency that the largest portions of the population were using food stamps: 10.4% in 1993 and 1994, and 10% in 1995.

Even if 28 million Americans use food stamps in 2008 as projected — and eagerly reported — with 303.5 million people in the country, the rate of 9.2% would still be lower than those three Clinton years.

The headlines were lies. The statistics were misleading and used to exaggerate the condition of America. For all we know those on food stamps are mostly illegal aliens out of work now and afraid to leave because they cannot get back in as easily. Whatever the true story the fact still stand the media lied. And they are arrogant enough to expect Americans to pay them good money to lie to us! How ridiculous can these people be.

And there is more to the media problem as well. People don’t want news synthesized down to bland nothingness, the want to be informed. They want to understand the issues and the details and the nuances. They want to become literate on subjects, not repeat talking points and propaganda. The news media’s reporting is short, vague and lacks depth. Like these false stories, the reporting has no depth. It is unsatisfying to the adult mind and seems more palatable to a 3rd grader.

Interestingly enough the report I linked to above addressed this problem, and referenced Rush Limbaugh of all people to make the point:

Rush Limbaugh’s reference to the mainstream press as the “drive-by” media may be an ideologically driven critique, but in the case of several major stories in 2007, including the Virginia Tech massacre, the media did reveal a tendency to flood the zone with instant coverage and then quickly drop the subject. The media in 2007 had a markedly short attention span.

No depth, no detail, no quality, no added value – and too many times simply out and out lies. If that is your product you will go out of business.

Update: I missed this in the reporting linked above which debunked the food stamp issue. It turns out the up turn is probably linked to changes in eligibility passed in 2002, not the economy:

At various times, it’s been harder to get food stamps. One example: the years that followed the 1996 welfare reform. At other times, the standards have been relaxed, as they were with the 2002 farm bill.

Look at the chart again and note when the drop started in the Clinton years (after eligibility was tightened) and when it starting rising again (when eligibility was loosened). It is clear our economy and job situation has not moved seen major fluctuations – yearly GDP and unemployment rates have been bouncing around a narrow band for 20 years now. So it is clear that the number of people using food stamps are not measuring the economy, it is measuring the eligibility to the program.