Its interesting how this thread morphed from a discussion about spelling and grammar errors in The Oklahoman (its no longer The DAILY Oklahoman) to an analysis about editorial direction, story depth and liberal vs. conservative ownership. I offer two opinions on the issue.

1. The journalism of William Jennings Bryan, Mark Twain, Sinclair Lewis, Will Rogers and Willaim Randolph Hurst no longer exists. Marshall MaLuhan was incredibly correct in his analysis, hot media has replaced cold type. You will not find in depth anything in a media that is literally fighting to survive. The New York Times can do it, for now, because of deep pockets and tradition.

2. TOK is a conservative newspaper because its advertisers cater to conservative consumers, and those advertisers $$ pay the bills. Oklahoma is a conservative state. If you are a liberal in Oklahoma expecting a liberal newspaper you are SOL.

Putting 1 & 2 together, I predict The New York Times will, in time, either morph into an East Coat TOK, or pass from the scene. I have no joy in this prediction, but I don’t miss my cassette tapes getting all tangled up when I hit rewind either.

Change is inevitable; progress is a matter of perspective.

There was a great 4-hour series on PBS's Frontline called News War, that discussed all the various issues about ethics in reporting and the changing times -- especially the role of newspapers:

FRONTLINE: news war | PBS

My main gripes with the news section of the paper are:

- Often times the articles are convoluted. I know that this is sometimes a stylistic choice to reel a reader in. But one day I recall reading several stories where the opener was all salacious fluff to pull you in, then they went on talking about the story for a paragraph without really explaining what it was all about, and finally in the last few sentences laid it all out and explained what the story was all about. That works for TV news but it just translates badly in print.

- I remember posting an example here a few months ago of a story that ticked me off. The entire thing was hearsay and nothing had been substantiated by anyone. I don't understand how things like that can get a pass and end up being printed.

- It seems to be written at the 8th grade level. Not as big of a deal to me... I realize that most TV broadcasts and newspapers are.

- Not a lot of investigation or in-depth coverage.

- Whenever they report on an interest that is owned by their owners (e.g. the Gaylords or Gaylord Entertainment), I have never once seen them run a disclaimer to that effect.



In my opinion, the problems that I have with the editorial page are:

- They don't report on "the other side's arguments." Case in point, even if I think or believe a certain way, I still like to hear what the other side is thinking. It helps me to understand where they are coming from because maybe we can bridge the gap, or maybe I might change my mind. The Oklahoman never dives in and tries to explain "the other side" like this. Instead they just paint anyone who disagrees with them as dumb, immoral, and illogical.

- The letters to the editor that they print are so combative, insulting, and usually lacking in substance. I am convinced that given an open debate I could tear almost anyone of the writers to shreds, simply because most are regurgitating things they have heard someone else say on TV or the radio.

- They just can't bring themselves to endorse a Democrat, no matter how conservative. It cracked me up that during the last general election the paper endorsed someone for about every office... except the Governor's. We get it -- you either liked Henry more than Istook or just couldn't stand Istook. Don't worry, your paper won't spontaneously combust if you endorse a Democrat occasionally.

- Finally, sometimes The Oklahoman is conservative without thinking. I'll never forget the morning after Katrina... the editorial page had a glowing review of the Bush administration's actions and basically told everyone to back off. Then, during that day, there was a massive outcry from both the left and the right all day long. People everywhere stopped and said, 'what the hell is going on in New Orleans?' The next day The Oklahoman ran an editorial basically saying, 'okay maybe we were a bit hasty.'