KCRag Forum

Maitre D wrote: Obv you'd think that.


Anyway, I think in the 2004 elections, I posted their endorsements.  In something like 11 of 12 races, they endorsed the Democrat.  Adn the only Republican was Kit Bond.  Kit Bond!  And in the article, they denounced his "racist" past of denying that Fed Judgship for that black STL guy, and said they only favor him b/c he brings Pork to the area.

That's balanced?

beautyfromashes wrote: Definitely liberal, but, the city itself trends more liberal.  Just playing to the audience.

chrizow wrote: there is no reason whatsoever why the star should skew "conservative."  large U.S. newspapers always skew urbane/global/liberal because newspapers are humanist documents intended to inform the public. 

chrizow wrote: there is no reason whatsoever why the star should skew "conservative."  large newspapers always skew urbane/global/liberal because newspapers are humanist documents intended to inform the public.  there is a wide media marketplace out there, where one can find viewpoints from all over the spectrum.  there is no reason why the star should endorse some token republican candidates just to appease the red-staters in the audience.  that just isn't the voice of the newspaper.  if people don't like that, then great - read the new republic or pat buchanan books or wherever you can get the message that speaks to you. 

kigmee wrote: Refusing to support all that because they endorse candidates from the wrong party in elections is spiteful and short-sighted.

Maitre D wrote:
Telling the consumer he is wrong, is usually a surefire way to win him over.

LenexatoKCMO wrote: I would actually posit that if the Star swung to the right in its outlook, they would likely loose readership. 

Maitre D wrote:
So liberals would stop buying the paper if it became more balanced?


That is going to upset some posters on this thread you know.

GRID wrote: The Star just responds to what people want.  They don't want news, they don't care.  People want shock news, like what KCTV 5 does.  The average person on the street has no clue what's going on in KC.  What development is going on, what tiff even means.   I have come to the conclusion that people are simply clueless about anything anymore.  Everybody is just so tied up in their own worlds that it doesn’t matter what’s going on across town or across the nation.

The average person reads the sports section and maybe the opinion.

What is the Star to do?  I think they do a good job for what they are.  I wish the business section of the paper was larger, more in depth and more accurate, but I know I'm in the minority though.  The Star has always come across to me as a small town newspaper serving a big city.  Way too much emphasis on sports, not enough on business, the national/world news is all but ignored, even the font sizes and colors make the paper look a bit cheesy for a big city paper.  But worst of all, the paper is run by suburbanites, the powerful opinion section should be renamed the “Why KCMO isn’t as good as Johnson County” section. 

The fact is I get my development news from real sources like the developers themselves, and the business magazines, the sports is a day old and most of the “news” I do care about is not news to me.

Having said that…

I have to have the paper.  The real paper.  I need my hard copy of the paper every day and always will and it has nothing to do with me not being tech savy or not doing the internet.  I just got to have my daily paper and it doesn’t matter what city I’m in.  I always grab the local daily when traveling.

Anyway, I think the Star is losing subscribers because people don't care about real news anymore.  They don't read it and just don't care.  More and more people are getting by without reading the paper (hard copy or internet) every year.  And more and more people seem totally clueless about what’s going on around them.  I guess that’s a coincidence?

That's my opinion anyway.

ignatius wrote: The silicon-based world of the Internet has created magnitudes more impact in subscription rates of the now archaic carbon-based medium than the political views of the paper.  

I would think on the whole though that when you include reader hits from The Star online, an article is probably read more often now than just before the internet, when newspaper subscriptions were still declining due to competition with TV and other media.  

Now they can track how many people actually read an article and generally where they live.  Ads can be tracked and searching classified ads are easier.  It really should be a better world for them but they need to fully exploit the capabilities of the silicon-based format and focus less on traditional methods of the old newspaper business.

The Star's parent needs to really focus on making the 'paper' more readable on mobile phones.  Not just the articles but full functionality, searching ads, mortgage rates, entertainment calendar, virtually everything the 'paper' can offer.  Shouldn't even be considered a paper anymore, but rather a service.  In the end, newspapers need to become a local My Yahoo that focus on local services, local news with local representation (formerly known as columnists).  Think about the etymology of that word, even 'columnist' is based on physically laid out columns in the paper format.  It should be a dead word in the silicon-based age.  "Newspapers" that don't adapt and still think in carbon-based terms will die.  And they probably should.

LenexatoKCMO wrote: Yes,
I think if the Star started taking a conservative stance - perhaps some "edgy" anti-abortion/evolution commentary, etc. - they would have a chunk of their remaining readership quit in disgust - on the other hand I don't see that there are a lot of conservatives out there that don't take the paper now but suddenly would after such a shift.  That's my instinct anyhow. 

Maitre D wrote: Possible.  I just find it ironic how the libs say a paper's politics shouldn't be a purchasing factor.  But then we agree, they'd leave if it went against them.