McClatchy's Dying: Who's Got the Will?

we're in an environment where many print-based news outlets are fading, but perhaps McClatchy in particular wouldn't be fading as fast if they would try to address at least two points. Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala
Tags Help
Stats Help
Number sourcesHelp: 0
Number viewpointsHelp: 1
Opinions as factsHelp: 4
Derogatory wordsHelp: 4
Complimentary wordsHelp: 0
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Kaizar Campwala - Jun 16, 2008 - 8:50 AM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Member_photo_thumb
1.7
by Jim Lang - Oct. 1, 2008

This story provides a fact -- that McClatchy is cutting costs -- then makes two assertions: (1) their papers are left leaning and (2) that is what has led to their financial problems. As a daily reader of the Charlotte Observer, I can vouch for the fact that it is cutting costs. In addition I judge the Observer to have a "progressive" editorial policy tempered by the conservative bent of their circulation area (my wife considers the paper too conservative). However, I have seen no ... More »

See Full Review » (7 answers)
N784110505_9530_thumb
3.0
by Fabrice Florin - Oct. 1, 2008
See Full Review » (1 answer)
Member_photo_thumb
3.0
by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 1, 2008
See Full Review » (1 answer)
Silhouette_sml
1.1
by Michael Jones - Oct. 1, 2008

This is a hit piece, pure and simple. There's nothing there but the accusation that McClatchy is having trouble because they're left-leaning. Nothing to document the assertion that McClatchy is "left-leaning" or "anti-American" (in the words of the first commenter), nor to document the claim that this is what's causing their financial difficulties. Most significantly, nothing at all about the fact that in the run-up to the Iraq war, McClatchy was consistently the only mainstream ... More »

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

1.5

Poor
from 4 reviews (40% confidence)
Quality
1.3
Fairness
1.0
Information
2.0
Sourcing
1.5
Context
1.0
Popularity
2.3
Recommendation
2.2
Credibility
2.0
# Reviews
2.0
# Views
1.2
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!