New York Times: wrong

"100 years ago, the New York Times predicted cars would be abolished today"

http://io9.com/5634288/100-years-ago-the-new-york-times-predicted-cars-would-be-abolished-today

it would be nice if all cars that were used purely for getting to and from work were abolished and all that were left were "hobby" cars.. much like private airplanes today

The "grey lady" has long lost her sheen.

A mortician's make-over will last only so long and the NYT has been clinging to the sides of the coffin for a long, long time.

JoeyM wrote: "100 years ago, the New York Times predicted cars would be abolished today" http://io9.com/5634288/100-years-ago-the-new-york-times-predicted-cars-would-be-abolished-today

dumbest post ever.

How many people predicted flying cars or other fanciful things that never came true.

Go stir the pot elsewhere.

ignorant wrote:

JoeyM wrote: "100 years ago, the New York Times predicted cars would be abolished today" http://io9.com/5634288/100-years-ago-the-new-york-times-predicted-cars-would-be-abolished-today

dumbest post ever. How many people predicted flying cars or other fanciful things that never came true. Go stir the pot elsewhere.

Gee. Who peed in your cornflakes this morning?

1988RedT2 wrote:

ignorant wrote:

JoeyM wrote: "100 years ago, the New York Times predicted cars would be abolished today" http://io9.com/5634288/100-years-ago-the-new-york-times-predicted-cars-would-be-abolished-today

dumbest post ever. How many people predicted flying cars or other fanciful things that never came true. Go stir the pot elsewhere.

Gee. Who peed in your cornflakes this morning?

I dunno.. Ask DR. Hess why McCain didn't win in 2008, even though he predicited it all up and down this board...

Or Why I said that that Obama would actually pass a single payer system.. We were all wrong. It happens.

hoover tried to get a chicken in every pot.... How'd that work out for him.

oldsaw wrote: The "grey lady" has long lost her sheen. A mortician's make-over will last only so long and the NYT has been clinging to the sides of the coffin for a long, long time.

This. No one in my generation (or younger) could care less about newspapers, and the newspaper publishers have yet to figure out how to successfully put their content on the internet.

Dunno about cars, but I doubt it will take another 100 years for newspapers to be abolished.

Like Tim said, as long as people crap, the magazine business is probably safe and I think that includes newspapers. BTW, that article says the car was abolished and replaced with flying machines. Yeah, I wanna see some dimwit texting while flying down a city street. It's bad enough when the idiots are on wheels.

I personally prefer the feel etc of the newspaper to playing with some electronic gadget. Same as I prefer a real live book with bindings etc to that Kindle thing. It's just not the same, period. Yeah, I'm a Luddite.

Having said that, I've read the New York Times a couple of times and don't see how it's survived as long as it has. Not because it's a newspaper but because it's a 'limousine liberal' rag and is not a reflection of contemporary American society at all.

Oh. Guess I missed the point of the thread. "Liberal media" NYT made a mistaken prediction 100 years ago thus proving that Conservatives are smarter than Liberals. Got it.

bloomsburg has that in the works actually ;)

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Oh. Guess I missed the point of the thread. "Liberal media" NYT made a mistaken prediction 100 years ago thus proving that Conservatives are smarter than Liberals. Got it.

There's not much evidence that one is smarter than the other. There is, however, evidence that one side offers "stupidity" as reason for the other side's opposition.

The NYT has made many predictions about the future, as have inummerable others - generally, history has proven them wrong. Over the course of the 20th century, the Times has waffled back and forth between forseeing the doom of a new Ice Age and/or Global Warming. Seems that indicates that (like so many others) the NYT isn't as smart as it believes it is.

Here's an interesting report on journalistic reports lacking a bit of consistency:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

Jensenman wrote: I personally prefer the feel etc of the newspaper to playing with some electronic gadget. Same as I prefer a real live book with bindings etc to that Kindle thing. It's just not the same, period. Yeah, I'm a Luddite.

I concur about magazines, but they'll survive because the nature of their collected content is not something easily replicated online.

I prefer books as well. I don't like staring at screens, and I don't like the control that eBooks leave in the hands of the publishers.

But newspapers? There's nothing a newspaper does that isn't better done online. News is immediate, reviews and editorials are bountiful for anything you could ever want someone's opinion on, classifieds are searchable, the comics don't suck (seriously, how is Family Circus still in print?), et cetera.

The only reason I ever go looking for a newspaper is so I can light my barbecue.

ReverendDexter wrote: The only reason I ever go looking for a newspaper is so I can light my barbecue.

I haven't bought a newspaper in over a decade. Fire starting material is as close as the mail box; those sales flyers work really well.

oldsaw wrote: Here's an interesting report on journalistic reports lacking a bit of consistency: http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

For what it's wroth, this is knda wrong:

"Journalists have warned of climate change"

Journalists, I'm pretty sure, aren't studying the climate and predicting what may happen. Scientists, right or wrong, are. The media no more claims the earth is warming than they claimed Sadam had WMDs. Sure, they reported both. But accurately reporting what a scientist or President says isn't an endorsement. It's reporting.

Just sayin'

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Here's an interesting report on journalistic reports lacking a bit of consistency: http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

For what it's wroth, this is knda wrong: "Journalists have warned of climate change" Journalists, I'm pretty sure, aren't studying the climate and predicting what may happen. Scientists, right or wrong, are. The media no more claims the earth is warming than they claimed Sadam had WMDs. Sure, they reported both. But accurately reporting what a scientist or President says isn't an endorsement. It's reporting. Just sayin'

It's not wrong for journalists to report on science's flexible findings.

It IS wrong for journalists and (more importantly) their editors to NOT investigate and report both sides of any issue.

Just sayin'

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Oh. Guess I missed the point of the thread. "Liberal media" NYT made a mistaken prediction 100 years ago thus proving that Conservatives are smarter than Liberals. Got it.

Um.....I started the thread, and I didn't have any political agenda in mind when I did so. My rational was roughly "Ha ha....what a silly prediction." The political leaning of the publication had no bearing. I just think that people making predictions are idiots.