What did this guy hit??

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
Realistically, "your typical media type" knows as much criminology,
firefighting, public finance, education, agriculture, ecology, the
military,
economics, politics, etc.etc.etc., as he or she knows about: aviation.

Regrettably, that is exactly true.

Yes, it is. Until publishers and broadcasters become willing to pay
more attractive salaries, it will remain that way.

You mean, the $$$multi-millions they pay the Katie Cupcake, and all those,
isn't enough?


Take a look at the entry level salaries.

Initial recruitment does contribute to the final result.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

You mean, the $$$multi-millions they pay the Katie Cupcake, and all
those,
isn't enough?


Take a look at the entry level salaries.

Take a look at the starting salaries in any _glamour_ field. You could say
the same thing for baseball for example. Look at the pay scales for guys in
"A" level ball compared to, say, Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez.


Initial recruitment does contribute to the final result.


It's a field for people with little or no talent, but a lot of fantasies.

BTW, do mean to tell me that such a overwhelmingly left/liberal industry is
NOT paying adequate wages for entry level people? I thought only
conservative/rightwingnuts did that?


--
A nation can survive its fools, and even the
ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from
within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
for he is known and carries his banner openly.
But the traitor moves amongst those within
the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through
all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government
itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he
speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and
he wears their face and their arguments, he
appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the
hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation,
he works secretly and unknown in the night
to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects
the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
A murderer is less to fear. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

You mean, the $$$multi-millions they pay the Katie Cupcake, and all
those,
isn't enough?


Take a look at the entry level salaries.

Take a look at the starting salaries in any _glamour_ field. You could say
the same thing for baseball for example. Look at the pay scales for guys
in
"A" level ball compared to, say, Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez.


Initial recruitment does contribute to the final result.


It's a field for people with little or no talent, but a lot of fantasies.

I would tend to substitute knowledge or diligence, but don't dissagree.

BTW, do mean to tell me that such a overwhelmingly left/liberal industry
is
NOT paying adequate wages for entry level people? I thought only
conservative/rightwingnuts did that?

Yes, I do mean to tell you that; and there is reason to suppose that the
farthest left/liberal components pay the least. BTW, I doubt that this
astounds you. ;-)

--
A nation can survive its fools, and even the
ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from
within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
for he is known and carries his banner openly.
But the traitor moves amongst those within
the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through
all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government
itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he
speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and
he wears their face and their arguments, he
appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the
hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation,
he works secretly and unknown in the night
to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects
the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
A murderer is less to fear. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

BTW, do mean to tell me that such a overwhelmingly left/liberal industry

Matt, can you explain to me why about four times as many of those
"left/liberal" newspapers have endorsed the Republican presidential
candidate as endorsed the Democratic candidate, every four years since
about 1936, except for 1964?

(Source of that info: _Editor & Publisher_, the trade paper of the
newspaper business.)

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
BTW, do mean to tell me that such a overwhelmingly left/liberal industry

Matt, can you explain to me why about four times as many of those
"left/liberal" newspapers have endorsed the Republican presidential
candidate as endorsed the Democratic candidate, every four years since
about 1936, except for 1964?

(Source of that info: _Editor & Publisher_, the trade paper of the
newspaper business.)

E&P has ZERO credibility, but even if true, consider the statistical sample
(hundreds of small town (i.e., quite conservative) versus the NYTiLies,
LATimes...

BTW, I find it hard to believe that in 1936, 1940, 1944, the newspapers were
endorsing the challenger to FDR.

Again, check their statistical sample.


Matt
--
A nation can survive its fools, and even the
ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from
within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
for he is known and carries his banner openly.
But the traitor moves amongst those within
the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through
all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government
itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he
speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and
he wears their face and their arguments, he
appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the
hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation,
he works secretly and unknown in the night
to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects
the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
A murderer is less to fear. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

Matt, can you explain to me why about four times as many of those
"left/liberal" newspapers have endorsed the Republican presidential
candidate as endorsed the Democratic candidate, every four years since
about 1936, except for 1964?

(Source of that info: _Editor & Publisher_, the trade paper of the
newspaper business.)

E&P has ZERO credibility...

That is just your personal opinion, not a fact. If it has "zero
credibility," no one would read it and it would have gone belly up
decades ago.

but even if true, consider the statistical sample
(hundreds of small town (i.e., quite conservative) versus the NYTiLies,
LATimes...

You've never heard of the Wall Street Journal or the Chicago Tribune?

BTW, I find it hard to believe that in 1936, 1940, 1944, the newspapers were
endorsing the challenger to FDR.

That shows how little you know about American history and the
newspaper business. Go to a library and read some of those
newspapers.

Again, check their statistical sample.

It is not a "statistical sample." It is a census. I assume you know
the difference.

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
Matt, can you explain to me why about four times as many of those
"left/liberal" newspapers have endorsed the Republican presidential
candidate as endorsed the Democratic candidate, every four years since
about 1936, except for 1964?

(Source of that info: _Editor & Publisher_, the trade paper of the
newspaper business.)

E&P has ZERO credibility...

That is just your personal opinion, not a fact. If it has "zero
credibility," no one would read it and it would have gone belly up
decades ago.

Like national Enquirer...?


but even if true, consider the statistical sample
(hundreds of small town (i.e., quite conservative) versus the NYTiLies,
LATimes...

You've never heard of the Wall Street Journal or the Chicago Tribune?

There's two.

BTW, I find it hard to believe that in 1936, 1940, 1944, the newspapers
were
endorsing the challenger to FDR.

That shows how little you know about American history and the
newspaper business. Go to a library and read some of those
newspapers.

I may not know the newspaper business circa 1930's and 40's, but I do dhave
a fairly good knowledge of American history.

Again, check their statistical sample.

It is not a "statistical sample." It is a census. I assume you know
the difference.

Yes, a sample is a subset. Now, how did E&P do a census of the many
newspapers that long out of business and not archived?

But, even more, you made my point -- thank you.

Now, for all that IRRELEVENT drivel and fodder for "Trivial Pursuit", you
point is...what?

E&P has ZERO credibility...

That is just your personal opinion, not a fact. If it has "zero
credibility," no one would read it and it would have gone belly up
decades ago.

Like national Enquirer...?

A ridiculous comparison and you know it. E&P is read by people in
the newspaper business and they want good info about what's going on.

NE is read by housewives for entertainment.

but even if true, consider the statistical sample
(hundreds of small town (i.e., quite conservative) versus the NYTiLies,
LATimes...

You've never heard of the Wall Street Journal or the Chicago Tribune?

There's two.

Two is one more than it takes to refute your implied porposition that
only small town papers are conservative. I could add the Greensburg
Tribune and the Harrisburg Patriot News, but I'm sure you never heard
of them. They are not published in "small towns."

That shows how little you know about American history and the
newspaper business. Go to a library and read some of those
newspapers.

I may not know the newspaper business circa 1930's and 40's, but I do dhave
a fairly good knowledge of American history.

But you're not aware of the resistance of the business community (of
which newspapers are a part) to FDR's New Deal?

But, even more, you made my point

Only in your mind-- which was already made up. Since you know little
about the newspaper business, how would you know that E&P has "zero
credibility"? Did you have any opinion at all, or did you even know
that Editor & Publisher existed, before you read my earlier post?

vince norris