I know this issue has been thrown into various unrelated threads before, but I thought I would start a thread in regards to peoples opinion of the Daily Oklahoman a.k.a. the Daily Disappointment. As a reader (by means of no choice) did it urk me today picking up the Monday edition. Only three sections and the content was very thin, almost as thin as a university newspaper, only the university papers offer more investigative journalism. Just because it is a Monday does not mean there is not enough content to have a broader, bigger paper. I like some of the revisions of the Business section offering more local content but however taking out most of the stocks out when they should of been adding.

On another note, the Look@OKC targeted at the Gazette is another story of its own. It lacks content and I have found it very contradicting. One case and point, it lists the OKC Museum of Art among other businesses, in Bricktown, Midtown, and OKC. Which one is it?? It is clearly not Bricktown. Depending on which page you read the location varies. I'm tired of everyone promoting Bricktown, we should be proud and promote other districts, especially the Arts District.

Well, I'm Kelly Ogle, and thats my 2 cents, ( I kid, I kid)

If the Daily Oklahoman is like most newspapers, Mondays are always thin — the primary reason being that most of the content would have to be gathered over the weekend when most daily newspapers operate on a skeleton staff.

Furthermore, studies show that Monday is one of the weakest readership days of the week, so papers aren't likely to invest alot of extra money to "beef it up."

Having said that, I am not a fan of the Daily Oklahoman. I think the paper is sub-par when compared to papers of like size in other markets.

Actually, most cities the size of Oklahoma City have very large content in their newspapers, even on Monday.

If we had a true competitor to the Oklahoman, I bet we could either force the Gaylords to produce a quality product or run them out of town.

I have thought many times about canceling my subscription, however, I would lose the Sunday ads.

VERY low quality product. And WAY too high in price. Other citys charga a lot less for more.

It's better than the Tulsa World, but I know that isn't saying much.


I acknowledge the critisms -- especially the lack of investigative reporting -- but here's some positives:

1. Very good, free (unlike the TW) website that is updated frequently. It was also one of the very first dailies to go on-line.

2. Decent coverage of local business happenings.

3. Excellent coverage of local college and high school sports.

4. Entire archives (every single article, ad, photo, etc.) scanned into a searchable database. It's not cheap but it's a fantastic resource I have used many times. And I believe access is free in OKC libraries.

I don't subscribe and what little useful information it provides, I get from their website. It just seems like 80% of its content is irrelevant to me. The Journal Record is (or used to be) abouit 2 days ahead of the DOK, so I just kind of read that. Even when it comes to local college sports, other websites contain much better and more timely information.

As mranderson points out, the lack of competition doesn't help. I think a lot of markets are suffering from media consolidation which leads to complacency.

Look@OKC has been kind of a joke. I'm not sure if they know what it they want it to be, but it more closely resembles my college newsletter than a citywide weekly.

Gazette + Journal Record, suplemented by newsok.com and I'm good for local topics.

I would have to disagree. The Tulsa world is a much, much better newspaper......Daily Oklahoman is probably the worst paper in the US.

I would have to disagree. The Tulsa world is a much, much better newspaper......Daily Oklahoman is probably the worst paper in the US.
Sheesh...I am in the minority here. I really like the Oklahoman and I subscribe to the Daily and the Sunday. Sure, it could use a facelift and a few changes could be made, but it is all we have for right now. This reminds me of the people who complain about certain TV shows. They have a remote control, so they can choose to watch a certain show or they can change the channel. The same with the Oklahoman. If you don't like it, don't buy it....buy the Washington Post or the Tulsa World.

Actually the amount of content in a newspaper is determined by the amount of advertising sold. Usually advertisers go all out on Sunday and take Monday off. If the advertising was there you would see more content, however the quality of content, especially local content, would suffer, but you would get more WIRE

I'm not thrilled that the Oklahoman is the front door to OKC either (ever notice how many Reader's Choice vote-getters are chains whereas the Gazette winners are usually local restaurants?), but at least they're trying.

The weekend section is decent and highlights a widening array of events. It features one of the most progressive writers in the area, George Lang (a reporter I remember from OU's student paper), who is very familiar with the burgeoning rock scene in OKC.

Look@OKC is a departure from what the paper has done in the past, when coverage of anything twentysomething was limited to NFL draftees and wedding announcements. The photos are of diverse people, places, and events. I have no doubt some of this was spurred by the creative class discussion the past couple of years; at least Oklahoman is trying to reach out to younger readers. For the most part, their bloggers are not your stereotypical red staters, and are even articulate, sometimes funny (take that Argus Hamilton).

I like that there's a science section. And if there's anything that has kept me from actively boycotting the Oklahoman, it's the fact that the writers and editors are pro-downtown -- and were pro-MAPS. It's easy to take such coverage for granted, but I've read some anti-urban pieces in the dailies of other communities, and having the signature daily newspaper support developments downtown is a major advantage for Oklahoma City. Yeah, sometimes the coverage is restricted to the superficial, but it's better than an apathetic or negative tone the paper could have taken.

I wonder if any single-newspaper town has a lot of love for it's one and only daily?


And even though I never agreed with their politics, I've never understood the hatred many have for the Gaylords, either.


I suppose many just resent the influence that can be exerted by a small group of people.

Actually the amount of content in a newspaper is determined by the amount of advertising sold. Usually advertisers go all out on Sunday and take Monday off. If the advertising was there you would see more content, however the quality of content, especially local content, would suffer, but you would get more WIRE

No offense, but I dont see the connection between advertising and content. I mean, if there were more advertising, then there would be more ads, right?

Content is dictated by the department of journalism and the editor. Reporters go out to collect the news and assemble it for the editor. The editor then decides what to publish.

I think that is the problem with OKC's paper right there 1) lack of investigative reporting and 2) a super conservative editor/publisher.

A real newspaper would report EVERYTHING going on in a city, not just the hot crime or the "feel good" goofy stories that make you feel like throwing up. Like others have said, there are numerous other sources than the dissappointment to find complete news about OKC (if the Daily even covered it)!

Second point, A real newspaper has an editor board which reports the news and stories without a personal slant. The editor's job is to make sure the grammar is correct and that no laws have been broken by any of the stories. The editor should ensure that proper grammar is used and that words are spelled correctly.

Well, I dont have to tell you all that the daily fails in both - reporters sit in their office and "hardly" report anything when they do come out AND the editor slants the stories to have a rather Christian conservative viewpoint.

Often-times, morality is not warranted when someone is just trying to be informed about local events. But it seems that the stories that do make it into the paper are more riminiscent of a Sunday sermon than responsible (and neutral) journalism. It should not matter what someone's beliefs are.

I'm not thrilled that the Oklahoman is the front door to OKC either (ever notice how many Reader's Choice vote-getters are chains whereas the Gazette winners are usually local restaurants?), but at least they're trying.

The weekend section is decent and highlights a widening array of events. It features one of the most progressive writers in the area, George Lang (a reporter I remember from OU's student paper), who is very familiar with the burgeoning rock scene in OKC.

Look@OKC is a departure from what the paper has done in the past, when coverage of anything twentysomething was limited to NFL draftees and wedding announcements. The photos are of diverse people, places, and events. I have no doubt some of this was spurred by the creative class discussion the past couple of years; at least Oklahoman is trying to reach out to younger readers. For the most part, their bloggers are not your stereotypical red staters, and are even articulate, sometimes funny (take that Argus Hamilton).

I like that there's a science section. And if there's anything that has kept me from actively boycotting the Oklahoman, it's the fact that the writers and editors are pro-downtown -- and were pro-MAPS. It's easy to take such coverage for granted, but I've read some anti-urban pieces in the dailies of other communities, and having the signature daily newspaper support developments downtown is a major advantage for Oklahoma City. Yeah, sometimes the coverage is restricted to the superficial, but it's better than an apathetic or negative tone the paper could have taken.

Floater, I agree that the paper does support downtown.

I just wonder why they are usually the last to report and the content is very weak and minimal at that. Also, their coverage usually seems in-support of a local group of "good ole boy" building owners who no doubt provide financial incentives for the press. Little press is given to "outsiders" which often includes minorities.

I guess that explains how the paper is pro downtown but anti Inner City - notice how there is LITTLE if ANY coverage of Asia District, Capital Hill, Eastside, 39th Enclave, so on. ...

I would have to disagree. The Tulsa world is a much, much better newspaper......Daily Oklahoman is probably the worst paper in the US.

Sorry. I beg to differ. Tulsa World IMO is not a much better paper. It is about the same. I read both every day. I don't see any difference in journalism. Both are poor papers.

Sorry. I beg to differ. Tulsa World IMO is not a much better paper. It is about the same. I read both every day. I don't see any difference in journalism. Both are poor papers.

I think Cains was just kidding! I mean, he/she seems like a very intelligent person.

Both papers suck but Oklahoman is a little better, given that it is listed as a major metro market daily - they have to get off their a** sometimes. -- Usually when there is some sort of a vested "financial, moral, or political" interest (the three terms seem like one to them).

:)

Malibu,

The disdain for the Gaylords is much deeper than simple envy. E.L. was a cruel and vindictive man who would destroy anyone who challenged him and the way he ran the city. OKC was operated much like an indigent colony in a banana republic.

Talk to the numerous insiders here in OKC who lost their jobs because they challenged E.L. and you'll get a better glimpse of the situation.

Also, as our resident billionaire, he chose to move his paper out of downtown (and largely out into the country) and he did little with his money to support our city's growth. When he did (i.e. Redhawks and Bass Pro), he had an ownership stake and stood to make money.

I'm sick of the freaking State Fair and the Cowboy Hall of Fame, the only cultural things he really ever supported.

The paper is terrible, although it has greatly improved since E.L. croaked.

Floater, I agree that the paper does support downtown.

I just wonder why they are usually the last to report and the content is very weak and minimal at that. Also, their coverage usually seems in-support of a local group of "good ole boy" building owners who no doubt provide financial incentives for the press. Little press is given to "outsiders" which often includes minorities.

I guess that explains how the paper is pro downtown but anti Inner City - notice how there is LITTLE if ANY coverage of Asia District, Capital Hill, Eastside, 39th Enclave, so on. ...

I can't believe I'm in a position of defending the Oklahoman, but there is some coverage of those areas. If it's inadequate, it's due to mediocrity rather than being anti-inner city.

And regards to the outsiders, well, that's just how OKC operates -- like small town, which is too bad. There really needs to be a democratization of development where there is not only a more open process, but more local developers. It's easy for a good ole boy network to rule when there are too few good competitors.

This reminds me of the people who complain about certain TV shows.

You make a good point, but it is centered around the idea of choice. Like I stated before, I don't take the DOK. I just read a little bit online and get news elsewhere. I really don't feel like I'm missing anything. However, there is no other single source for daily print news covering all of OKC. In that, there is no other competing choice. This is what leads to the persistent and very vocal complaints about the DOK.

But, like Malibu, pointed out, this is no longer a problem unique to OKC. More and more markets are served by just one daily newspaper and, in most cases, everyone complains about it. Media consolidation has hurt the entire nation when it comes to in depth and investigative reporting. And, as far as politics goes, the DOK is going to be the single source for a lot of political coverage in the city. This allows them to effectively anoint certain people and projects. I think many people's animosity stems from the paper's influence and its effect on democracy in OKC. In the end, though, people who are frustrated with the paper do need to be more proactive with seeking out other information and supporting it.

Even when we had the Oklahoma Journal, the Oklahoman would (to use your term) "anoit" people. With the exception of Bill Atkinson (who owned the Journal), the Oklahoman endorced most candidates that won their races.

So, in short, the Oklahoman has had the same power since day one. Who do you think drove off the Journal? It was not lack of sales.

I just have to remind everyone of this Columbia Journalism Review calling the Daily Oklahoma the WORST newspaper in America.

http://archives.cjr.org/year/99/1/worst.asp

And the present-day Tulsa World is truly Gaylordian in its zeal to shape the local agenda to fit its publisher's pocketbook. Maybe worse.

I like the look of Look.

I dislike the Daily Oklahoman. It's biased. After having spent years in the publishing industry as a writer then editor, I'm particularly disappointed at its editorial policy.

I don't read the Oklahoman very often, but when I do it is at the Metro Library for free online. My appreciation is for the amount of content which is a given because of the company's size and history. My subscriptions are with more specialized papers. I recommend the MidCity Advocate for fans of Downtown and OKC Business as long as you're not a fan of well written articles, and don't mind a huge slant.

I enjoy the articles and captions of Art being announced and talked about in this city. Oklahoma is years behind the visual arts culture that saturates other cities. I find such advertisements or event happenings very desirable.

It seems most of the criticism of the Oklahoman has to do with things that are either in the past (EL's political agenda) or areas where it's easy to find plenty of other news sources.

I grew up reading that thing every day and never let it influence me politically. In fact, my views have always been pretty contrary to those the paper has traditionally endorsed.


I take from it what I want (the items previously mentioned) and leave the rest.

It may be the only daily in town but it's far from the only resouce that's easily available and it's importance and influence will only continue to fade.

It seems most of the criticism of the Oklahoman has to do with things that are either in the past (EL's political agenda) or areas where it's easy to find plenty of other news sources.

I grew up reading that thing every day and never let it influence me politically. In fact, my views have always been pretty contrary to those the paper has traditionally endorsed.


I take from it what I want (the items previously mentioned) and leave the rest.

It may be the only daily in town but it's far from the only resouce that's easily available and it's importance and influence will only continue to fade.
My thoughts exactly.

Touché.

At what population point will the OKC metro reach the critical mass required to support another daily? Local papers are the only ones I physically touch (sans keyboard and mouse) save the WSJ and other choice papers from the great beyond. I like the feel of paper in my hand. And my couch is more comfortable than my computer chair. I want another daily paper.

We are past that mark. No one has chosen to invest the money to start a daily since Atkinson.

The economic metrics of newspapers are bizarre, to say the least. Few big cities have competing dailies anymore. Our good-looking big brother, Dallas, only has one paper now. It's just the way things are.

The only thing we have is the Oklahoman, and that's all we are likely to have in the future.

Hell, even New York truly only has one "paper of record."

The reason we complain about the Oklahoman is that it defines who we are to the world and to ourselves. And by its defition, it miniaturizes what we truly are as a city and state.

Malibu, I have always read the paper, and taken from it what I can, so I certainly understand where you're coming from. The challenge is, our state is one of the most illiterate states in the union -- and that is simply telling it like it is. The Oklahoman does little to broaden our horizons or face that problem head on.

There have been many improvements at the paper since Gaylord's passing, and I would be wrong not to mention them. But the paper is anything but a "big city" paper. It is an embodiment of mediocrity and staid, suburban ideas. It is not terrible, but it is not excellent in any single way.

I have a number of friends who work there and appreciate the jobs that they have. That being said, they would be the first to acknowledge that they all aspired to work for a better paper, and feel that the Oklahoman is not even worthy of a city like Oklahoma City.

I've heard countless stories about how the Oklahoman higher ups were seriously befuddled that they didn't win a Pulitzer for their bombing coverage. But I can tell you, as someone very directly impacted by the bombing, that the coverage in the Dallas Morning News and New York Times was leagues better than that in the Oklahoman. What the Oklahoman did well was serve as a sort of "news dump" for content about the bombing. A lot of quantity, but not much quality.

The powers that be at the Oklahoman thought they deserved the highest honor bestowed in journalism, and they will never truly earn such a prize because they don't follow the most basic precepts of providing quality journalism.

The paper has served mostly in its history as a vehicle for advertising; the "journalistic" element of the paper has existed only insofar as it has advanced the publisher's extreme right wing agenda.

Name one quality big-city paper that doesn't employ a full-time film critic; a full-time food critic; offer an op-ed page; etc. etc.

If you want to find out what the good ol' boy "socialites" are doing in Nichols Hills, the Oklahoman is an excellent newspaper.

I commend the paper for making improvements, but it is still worlds beneath what good, enterprising newspapers are doing in cities much smaller than ours.

No sense defending the entity that has largely made OKC what it is, and has mostly held it back.

and I think the main "hatred" of the Gaylords has always been they drive the competition out and the fact that they have way too many special interests

News-wise, you're probably better off picking up The Dallas Morning News and reading the "Southwest" section. The DMN has decent coverage of Oklahoma news in its regional section, so there is a good alternative to the Oklahoman.

The paper from the Dark Tower suppresses the truth. It either goes their way or the highway. I have seen letters that were sent to the Dark Tower that were edited to ensure that reporting the truth about Union Station was never reported and only focused on the so called benefits of the realignment.

I do not purchase anything from the Dark Tower (aka The Daily Jokelahoman). The news is heavily biased to self serving individuals.