We would miss it as much as a person would miss having a prostate exam. The world would be a better place without the influence of HIGHLY biased and left-wing agenda driven newspapers and editorial boards.

Are you failing economically because your owners leveraged a value that is no longer viable?

I just witnessed a well capitalized company, AB, get itself cherry picked into an highly leveraged enterprise.

Is this about journalism and newspapers, or something else, and greed is too easy an answer?

Mr. Greenbaum - I would agree that you generally leave things open for criticism. However, The Editors Desk blog is not a good example. A couple of things Mr. Parker has brought up on the Editors Desk: the newspaper telling people who they should vote for and newspapers having an ombudsman. Does it make a difference what the readers think? Will the newspaper stop telling people who they should vote for or bring back the ombudsman if that is what the readers want? When I asked that question there was never an answer given (although I would say that is actually an answer in itself).

I pretty much lost all respect for this paper when Arnie Robbins violated Missouri state law and Lee Enterprises’ code of ethics to out the death penalty doctor. I had no problem with the story - until he named the doctor. What makes Arnie Robbins and the PD above the law? If you don’t care about the law or the company code of ethics, then you certainly don’t care what we lowly readers think.

I know, I know, if I don’t like it then don’t read it. Unfortunately, this is pretty much the only source for local news so I don’t have much choice.

Sorry I’ve gone on a rant. I will not make any further comments on the subject.

I’m a generation X’er. I get all my news and media from my laptop. It is the newspaper of the future. I can read Stltoday, New York Times, London Times Edmonton Journal and the Globe and mail all at my finger tips. Newspapers are good for training dogs and swatting flies. I like my news a little more current than yesterday.

Kurt,

Perception may be reality, but objectivity is a myth. I submit that it is impossible to be unbiased. Of course, the inevitable counter is, “facts are not biased – they just are”. Well, allow me to give you an example.

Fact: When Bush took office, the Dow Jones was at 10,587.59, it closed Friday at 8,629.68 – a negative 17.59% return for a 7 year 11 month period.

This is unquestionably true – but is it unbiased? I say that by bringing up a negative fact (the poor market performance under Bush), I taint him with a negative connotation.

The truth is, simply by choosing a topic, you show a bias toward that topic – regardless of whether the discussion stays fact based or ventures into opinion. Therefore, objectivity (meaning the absence of bias) is impossible to achieve.

Personally, I do not look for a lack of bias when I choose a news source. I look for two things, the first is that the paper chooses topics I find interesting. If the stories consistently make me think, they are choosing well. If they keep putting up articles that I skip, then I will soon skip the site (or the paper). The second thing I look for is a lack of editorializing in the news. To me, this is when opinion is found in a straight news article. For example, lets take the market fact I gave earlier. Here’s an example of Pro Bush editorializing/opinion:

Due to the lingering effects of Clinton’s policies and the meddling of Democrats in Congress, the markets under Bush have fallen by 17.59%.

Here’s an example of Anti Bush editorializing/opinion:

Bush’s love of “free markets” and deregulation have led to a market crash that has cost the Dow 17.59% since he took office.

The PD does a good job of keeping the opinion on the editorial page (or the blogs) not in the news. Some will argue it’s still “biased” - but that’s the nature of the news. To me, the PD fits both of my requirements, so I read it. And yes, I would miss it if it were to go away.

If all the MSM is going to do is reprint stories pulled from AP and other MSM disinformation sources and Government controlled propaganda, then I say Outsource the Post’s newstaff to India for reposting. The MSM has long sermonized the cost benefit of getting rid of the Middle Class and working Americans so I say let the MSM go the same route as the rest of us. Remember when you “journalists” pass us in the bread line, there’s no line cutting, go to the back of the line.

Ah, but anonaman…your post proves you are not immune to bias too. Very biased post. You SHOULD be arguing that it is even more important for the people we elect not to keep folks from participating in a democracy by banning the press, and only that part of the press that disagrees with them. Sorry, but I can’t buy your bull that GB didn’t frag this country down. Too much proof otherwise.

David,

I am biased, we all are. That was my point, that we shouldn’t be looking for a lack of “bias” in the news because it’s not possible. Some choose news that reinforces their preconceived notions, they Hate to read an opinion that differs from their own. I choose my news sources by how interesting they are, and how much real fact is there, vs. opinion. I love opinion (or I wouldn’t be here) but it shouldn’t be mixed up in the hard news stories.

As for your assertion that I was defending Bush, hardly. I simply presented examples of bias, both for and against him. Apparently, the pro Bush example stuck in your mind so hard that the anti Bush example didn’t even register.

For the record, my true feelings about Bush can be summed up like this (to be read like the Simpson’s Comic Book Guy):

Worst. President. Ever.

…….I’ve always been (even before the internet) a Sunday-Newspaper buyer only. I never have had a subscription, I always buy the Sunday-Paper at the grocery store, and yes I would miss my Sunday edition.

I am thankful to the internet though for providing access to other social/political points of view, because the Post Dispatch’s unabsashed kowtowing for every Liberal/Democrat issue is a bit adnauseum at times.

I’ll continue to buy the Sunday Post as long as you print it.

I would not miss the blatantly bias ones at all. I want the news, the facts and NO op-ed disguised as news. Most journalists today do not have a clue. People like Joe Pulitzer are spinning in their graves with the abuse of the peoples trust! Shameful!!!!