OT: PG to only print 3 days a week...

[HailtoPitt]

Leftist writers. When the publisher changed, the writers group took out a freaking billboard expressing their leftist views, and staged a gathering in front of it with a photo they then paid to have placed in a full page of the paper, as a "protest". That effectively destroyed any semblance of political objectivity, whether you agree with their thinking or not.

Tony Norman in particular is probably the most racist "journalist" there, possibly anywhere. He has an almost psychotic hatred of caucasians (caucasian men, anyway). He once wrote a column calling not only for reparations, but that a portion of the US around Louisiana should be carved out of the nation, and given to African Americans to rule. And he furtherfantasized that slavery of whites should be the practice in said nation. And he was entirely serious. The rest of his output is similar. The dude is unhinged.

Agree with it or not (from what I've read here, several of you surely do... that's pretty far left.

I have to acknowledge his rants were entertaining, and he's certainly honest.

He of course doesn't see the irony that in this era, his extremism is protected due to PC, whereas a righty writing such a column for a mainstream newspaper espousing the return to slavery would be immediately fired.

What makes the PG a "far left" paper? One columnist writing about reparations years ago doesn't make the newspaper far left, imo. And I ask because I rarely read it, so I really don't know. What other far left issues is the paper or writers pushing?

 

[McKee Place]

What makes the PG a "far left" paper? One columnist writing about reparations years ago doesn't make the newspaper far left, imo. And I ask because I rarely read it, so I really don't know. What other far left issues is the paper or writers pushing?

Probably the most recent and visible was the papers crusade against UPMC. Which i didn't disagree with, by the way. But it went way- beyond the editorials. Articles slanted vigorously against UPMC were frequent and out front. That's not merely covering the news, that's taking a stand and attempting to create pressure for a cause. Again, a side I supported in this case. But it's still bias spilling over into coverage that should be bland and straight facts.

 

[djbpitt]

Yup. Regardless of your specific take on the PG, which I think is largely driven by an inferiority complex that sportswriters aren't more glowing about Pitt, the decline of print media and good journalism is an overall negative for citizens.

This.

 

[pittdan77]

Probably the most recent and visible was the papers crusade against UPMC. Which i didn't disagree with, by the way. But it went way- beyond the editorials. Articles slanted vigorously against UPMC were frequent and out front. That's not merely covering the news, that's taking a stand and attempting to create pressure for a cause. Again, a side I supported in this case. But it's still bias spilling over into coverage that should be bland and straight facts.

Newspapers have always taken up a cause. That's never been "wrong". You have to use care when doing it. The PG's problem is that people aren't willing to pay for a very limited selection of yesterday's news anymore. They missed the boat when they hid their news behind a paywall because the content was never great.

The only people that miss the print media are Boomers and people that own birds. The rest of us get alerts when something happens and read the stories as they happen. That has some of its own problems (accuracy in reporting is notoriously bad in the race to be first) but personally, I prefer that model.