Would you care if the Tulsa World died?

[Nik]

I saw this question posed on another site (http://consumerist.com/5168776/its-official-newspapers-are-dying; http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1448769/) and thought it might make for an interesting topic here. Its no secret the bias of the World publishers, which is probably the same for a lot of papers. But would you care if the World died? Are there enough other sources of information in Tulsa to withstand the loss of the most recognized?

[TURobY]

When I look at the alternatives (UTW, Beacon, Eagle, etc), I would be very sad. Even the local news stations don't give me anywhere NEAR the information that I can garner from the Tulsa World.

[cynical]

Every city needs at least one full-time daily newspaper.  Oklahoma City is better off having the Daily Oklahoman, wretched as it is, as opposed to having no daily paper.  Since there is no other daily paper in Tulsa, it needs the World.  It actually needed the Tribune as well, but the Tribune's business model proved to be unsustainable since it couldn't print a paper without the World's help. 

The bias issue isn't all that obvious.  While the editorial board policy positions are often moderate to liberal, they more often than not endorse Republican candidates for office, even some of the wacky ones such as Jim Inhofe.  When Doug Dodd, squeaky-clean Eagle Scout, church Elder, and the best Democratic candidate for Congress since Jim Jones, was running against John Sullivan, an ineffective Republican with a somewhat checkered past, the World overlooked Sullivan's negatives, Dodd's positives, and its own long history of criticizing Sullivan, and endorsed Sullivan.  Twice.  Whether the board's decision was based on expected advertisers' reactions or their fear that the World's mainly Republican readership would leave the only real newspaper in town, it shows a lack of consistency that undermines claims of bias from either side of the spectrum. 

It seems to me that the solution to the perception of bias is to have more than one daily paper, not killing the one that is left.  The realistic solution is to take a hard look at the range of opinion that is available in the World.  This morning's paper has syndicated articles from David Broder, a hard-core centrist to the dismay of readers on the left, and Cal Thomas, a fairly hard-line conservative (I hate that term because it doesn't really fit the Bush wing of the party).  The paper's own editorial writing is about the danger posed by meth labs and lauding the progress in replacing the River's Edge Cafe with the new Blue Rose.  Yesterday it was well-known pinkos Patrick Buchanan, George Will, and Georgie Ann Geyer, along with a liberal article from the editorial board itself applauding Obama's reversal of Bush restrictions on federally funded stem cell research and an article about the guy who was tossed out of the hunter safety course because he voted for Obama.  That article really wasn't liberal or conservative since it cited another assault on free speech, the arrest of the guy in OKC who had the "Abort Obama" sign on his car. 

So, where's the bias, really?  It is in the eye of the beholder.

[Conan71]

The bias issue isn't all that obvious.  While the editorial board policy positions are often moderate to liberal, they more often than not endorse Republican candidates for office, even some of the wacky ones such as Jim Inhofe.  When Doug Dodd, squeaky-clean Eagle Scout, church Elder, and the best Democratic candidate for Congress since Jim Jones, was running against John Sullivan, an ineffective Republican with a somewhat checkered past, the World overlooked Sullivan's negatives, Dodd's positives, and its own long history of criticizing Sullivan, and endorsed Sullivan.  Twice. 

Stop the presses!  There's your bias right there.  When the major shareholders of the paper are also major shareholders in a failed airline and a bank that gets bond underwriting business from the city and county, there's the strong appearance of a bias when they write as advocates for tax packages or public loans for private businesses they secretly own shares in.

Print media is struggling enough without a paper having it's credibility questioned by having buy-in to issues and questionable candidate choices.  A daily paper is one of the things you expect in a larger metropolitan area.  Sure it would be a shame to not have one anymore, but to be honest, other than public records (I check the obits every day to make sure I didn't die the previous day, if I ever do see my name, I'll take the rest of the day off.), I don't really get any news out of the TW that I can't find elsewhere on-line.

[cynical]

Stop the presses!  There's your bias right there.  When the major shareholders of the paper are also major shareholders in a failed airline and a bank that gets bond underwriting business from the city and county, there's the strong appearance of a bias when they write as advocates for tax packages or public loans for private businesses they secretly own shares in.

Print media is struggling enough without a paper having it's credibility questioned by having buy-in to issues and questionable candidate choices.  A daily paper is one of the things you expect in a larger metropolitan area.  Sure it would be a shame to not have one anymore, but to be honest, other than public records (I check the obits every day to make sure I didn't die the previous day, if I ever do see my name, I'll take the rest of the day off.), I don't really get any news out of the TW that I can't find elsewhere on-line.

I don't equate credibility and bias.  One can be biased and completely credible, especially about matters of opinion.  Another can be a "lying weasel"¹ and be totally unbiased.  The credibility question doesn't factor into editorial policy for the Tulsa World any more than it does any other media outlet.  In every case except Mother Jones and Consumer Reports, and perhaps even there, there are interlocking financial interests.  The question is whether in the absence of the financial interest the paper's reporting or opinion would have been different.  Another question is whether the paper has the duty to not report any story that involves a financial interest.  Only in the case of Great Plains Airlines can I find a failure to report the juicier details, but even there the World's approach to the issue was about the same as in other economic development issues in which its financial interest is less direct.   I'm sure there are other cases, but not as many as some of our local conspiracy theorists report.  Everyone knows that the World favors pretty much all economic development ideas, even some of the nuttier ones such as the island-based gated community that John Kelly Warren and others wanted to plant in the Arkansas River, paid for by us, of course.  Is that an example of bias?  Maybe, but I doubt that was what the original poster was referring to.  Did the World have a financial interest in that plan?  Even Michael Bates hasn't claimed that. And every newspaper makes questionable candidate choices. I'll admit that the World's continuing support of some of our locals is truly baffling. 

Incidentally, I have no financial interest in any newspaper that I know of.  Mutual funds are deeply mysterious things if you don't like reading quarterly reports, so it's possible.

¹Incidentally and not really on topic, the "lying weasel" reference came to mind from a brief filed by the Oklahoma Attorney General's office in an appeal from a decision of the state election board a few years ago.  I enjoyed the colorful language -- it helped that I agreed with the AG's position.  The candidate was a lying weasel.  The Supreme Court agreed.  Bias, perhaps?  No, I just wanted to play with the composition tools the new site lets us use.  It gives me the opportunity to use a superscript without having to know html.  Pretty cool, even if we have to put up with all of those flying banner words. 

[cannon_fodder]

I have problems with the TW (credibility issues on several topics among them:  including holding a share in publicly supported matters that they advocate for, supporting downtown development as they raze downtown buildings) but I appreciate the reporting they do.  They are really a local paper, not just a news wire service.  They have excellent TU sports coverage, in depth political goings on, and follow news and development in the Tulsa area better than anyone else.

I would miss them.

[Rico]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHDVCZp83pY                                  [/youtube]

Just about as much as I care about the above.....  I was really looking forward to making a little more ca$h on "Karma Kredits and Futures...

Oh woe is me.... A full river of water a boat and not a single oar to try and steer myself North to the Casino.

[joiei]

Stop the presses!  There's your bias right there.  When the major shareholders of the paper are also major shareholders in a failed airline and a bank that gets bond underwriting business from the city and county, there's the strong appearance of a bias when they write as advocates for tax packages or public loans for private businesses they secretly own shares in.

Print media is struggling enough without a paper having it's credibility questioned by having buy-in to issues and questionable candidate choices.  A daily paper is one of the things you expect in a larger metropolitan area.  Sure it would be a shame to not have one anymore, but to be honest, other than public records (I check the obits every day to make sure I didn't die the previous day, if I ever do see my name, I'll take the rest of the day off.), I don't really get any news out of the TW that I can't find elsewhere on-line.

Is that because you read the Tulsa World online? 

[waterboy]

Rico! Boogie With Canned Heat! I had almost forgotten them. Sweet.

Oh, yeah. I would miss them. Mostly I would fear who replaced them. It wouldn't be the lightweights in the market place now. It would be Gannett or The Daily Disappointment-Tulsa Edition. Then ya'll will know the pain of bias and benign.

[HazMatCFO]

No.

[Neptune]

Yes, I'd care, but I'm sure it would all be fine.

Newspapers are dinosaurs.  They're on their way to extinction; or at least on their way to being "downsized" or "digitized."

150 year old Seattle paper to go digital

It's not just newspapers.  Technology is effecting land-line telephones too.  And as soon as television and cable broadcasts become available over the internet, the cable companies will be feeling it. 

[GG]

Yes I would, what would I read as I eat my Total cereal and drink my Zero Coke.

[Red Arrow]

I have plenty of differences of opinion with the TW but I would still miss it. I usually read parts of it while eating breakfast.

Jim Jones:
I was not a Jim Jones fan so saying someone is the best Dem since JJ would explain to me why we have Sullivan and Inhofe. JJ talked a good story here at home but his voting record in DC didn't usually match the story here in Tulsa.  My dad attended many of JJ's town meetings.

[Steve]

I would most certainly care if the daily print edition of the TW disappeared.  Regardless of editorial content/opinion, I think it would be a great loss for a city the size of Tulsa not to have a daily print edition newspaper.  Although I recently changed my 30+ year subscription from daily to Thurs.-Sun. only, for economic reasons, I still rely on the TW for 90% of my local news information, TV for the rest.

Must be an age/generational thing, but I still look forward to having my daily paper in hand with my cup of coffee and reading at my leisure.  I can put it down, come back to it when I wish, or easily take it on the go.  Staring at a computer screen and surfing sites for news, especially local news, will never be an adequate substitute for this old fart.