Houston Newspaper

[gto250us]

The Pulitzer finalist are out for newspaper reporting and once again the newspaper servicing the fourth largest city in America has NO candidates. Why is that? Why does Houston have such a lousy newspaper when cities that are much smaller have great papers?

Here are the smaller cities with finalists:

Miami

Baltimore

Boston

Washington, DC

Birmingham, AL

Hartford, CN

Seattle

Atlanta

Denver

Hampton Roads, VA

Portland, OR

Sorry, this is in the wrong topic area, but I see no way to delete or change it once it is submitted.

Edited March 8, 2007 by gto250us

[Subdude]

I wouldn't assume there is any relationship between the size of a city and the quality of the local newspaper. Look, the Chronicle doesn't care about winning Pulitzer prizes. Their goal is to be as politically neutral as possible, inoffensive, and sell a lot of newspapers. Pulitzer Prize reporting doesn't contribute to that. I don't mean that as criticism. It's a perfectly valid business model, and the Chronicle is very similar to most other US metropolitian newspapers in that respect.

[gto250us]

I wouldn't assume there is any relationship between the size of a city and the quality of the local newspaper. Look, the Chronicle doesn't care about winning Pulitzer prizes. Their goal is to be as politically neutral as possible, inoffensive, and sell a lot of newspapers. Pulitzer Prize reporting doesn't contribute to that. I don't mean that as criticism. It's a perfectly valid business model, and the Chronicle is very similar to most other US metropolitan newspapers in that respect.

You could be right. Selling newspapers is the goal, which is different than putting out a quality newspaper. Although, I must say that New York, Chicago and LA have nationally recognized quality newspapers. I think the Chron is only interested in putting out Foley, OH sorry, Macy's ads.

I would be interested in hearing from some Chron staff, such as writers, editors, publisher as to their view of this issue.

[TheNiche]

You could be right. Selling newspapers is the goal, which is different than putting out a quality newspaper. Although, I must say that New York, Chicago and LA have nationally recognized quality newspapers. I think the Chron is only interested in putting out Foley, OH sorry, Macy's ads.

I would be interested in hearing from some Chron staff, such as writers, editors, publisher as to their view of this issue.

You won't. And you don't need to. They're in the entertainment business.

Technically, I think that Subdude is correct that they're unbiased, but only because they could care less about (most) political issues and are usually much more interested in scaring their audience, emphasizing conflict, and embellishing worthy but unsexy information. ...but since scare tactics that work on a local level (i.e. air pollution, environment, crime, education, health) tend to create a reaction from the left, and business news is more difficult to embelish in a way that riles up the right, I think that many people perceive it as a left-leaning organization. So it isn't that they intend to be biased, just that uncomplicated social matters are easy to embellish and spin in such a way that they induce readership...biased by accident.

[gto250us]

Here is an example of Chron's poor reporting. Take the maniac Astronaut story. Yes it's tabloid garbage, but it is Houston garbage. The astronaut at the center, Capt. Nowak, was fired by NASA today. The New York Times reported the story at around 9 PM on 7 March, according to Google News. The Chron posted the story on its webpage at 2:07 PM 8 March. Probably after reading the story in the Times.

OK enough said, the Chron sucks and I guess it always will. Time to move on.

[TheNiche]

Here is an example of Chron's poor reporting. Take the maniac Astronaut story. Yes it's tabloid garbage, but it is Houston garbage. The astronaut at the center, Capt. Nowak, was fired by NASA today. The New York Times reported the story at around 9 PM on 7 March, according to Google News. The Chron posted the story on its webpage at 2:07 PM 8 March. Probably after reading the story in the Times.

OK enough said, the Chron sucks and I guess it always will. Time to move on.

Not only are they frequently late, they also get the information wrong. Certain reporters have no qualms and are unapologetic when it comes to quoting people and literally 'putting words in one's mouth'. The good ones at least recognize that if you grossly misquote someone, that person will never speak to you again...unfortunately, the good ones are hard to come by.

[FilioScotia]

Why does Houston have such a lousy newspaper when cities that are much smaller have great papers? One reason and one reason only.

It has no competition. The Chron eliminated its only other competitor back in the 90s. They may think of themselves as a great newspaper, but the only way to have that status is to earn it through honest competition, and they don't have any. It won't get any better because it doesn't have to.

They remind me of the old Houston Lighting and Power, which at that time was the only light company in town and acted like it all the time. Their attitude was "What are you going to do about it? Take your business somewhere else? Harharharhar!!"

I hate to break it to the rocket scientists running the Chron, but they aren't the only source of news and information anymore. People have choices -- lots of choices -- and I've made mine. I cancelled my Chron subscription after that "Anna Nicole Smith was a bi-sexual lesbian" story. If I want to read tabloid trash I'll buy one of the rags in the checkout line at Kroger. I now get all my news from the Internet, and I think I'm significantly more informed than I was when I only read the Chron. I also don't get printer's ink on my fingers anymore.

I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing yet, because not all newspapers are as bad as the Chronicle, there are some good papers out there, but I fear the era of print journalism is nearing its end.

Edited March 8, 2007 by FilioScotia

[RedScare]

OK, so a couple of posts ago, gto complains that the Chron was slow to report tabloid trash with a local connection. Then, Filio complains that the Chron reported tabloid trash with a local connection (BTW, the Press reported on ANS' lesbian girlfriend years ago).

So, what's a dedicated editor to do? Which one of you is he supposed to piss off? Perhaps both of those stories are in the paper because there are lots of people who read that garbage. The editor just might expect Filio to understand that the newspaper is not written for him, but for the entire Houston area. The editor just might expect Filio to do what I did on all of the ANS stories....ignore it!

You know, I thought stories about Billy Ray Cyrus' 14 year old daughter singing at a goofy rodeo was pretty lame too, but guess what? I didn't read that article either.

[PapillionWyngs]

I remember when we had three viable newspapers in Houston, the Houston Press (not the sorry-assed one we have now), the Houston Chronicle and the Houston Post. The problem with having only one newspaper is that nothing local gets covered.

I hate it.

I'd rather have no newspaper at all.

[gto250us]

OK, so a couple of posts ago, gto complains that the Chron was slow to report tabloid trash with a local connection. Then, Filio complains that the Chron reported tabloid trash with a local connection (BTW, the Press reported on ANS' lesbian girlfriend years ago).

So, what's a dedicated editor to do? Which one of you is he supposed to piss off? Perhaps both of those stories are in the paper because there are lots of people who read that garbage. The editor just might expect Filio to understand that the newspaper is not written for him, but for the entire Houston area. The editor just might expect Filio to do what I did on all of the ANS stories....ignore it!

You know, I thought stories about Billy Ray Cyrus' 14 year old daughter singing at a goofy rodeo was pretty lame too, but guess what? I didn't read that article either.

The point that I was trying to make with the NASA story is that here is a hometown Houston story and the Chron gets scooped by a New York paper. The same thing happened with the biggest Houston story of the last 10 years, Enron.

I think that most Chron reporters spend their time reading other papers for their stories. enough staid. The Chron belongs at the bottom the the bird cage.

OH, yeah, and I love the Chron marketing staff, Bums on Westheimer selling papers. Thats real classy.

[TheNiche]

The point that I was trying to make with the NASA story is that here is a hometown Houston story and the Chron gets scooped by a New York paper. The same thing happened with the biggest Houston story of the last 10 years, Enron.

I think that most Chron reporters spend their time reading other papers for their stories. enough staid. The Chron belongs at the bottom the the bird cage.

OH, yeah, and I love the Chron marketing staff, Bums on Westheimer selling papers. Thats real classy.

Part of the problem there is that if someone has a story with national significance, why would they take it to the Chronicle when they can take it to the New York Times or another major national paper and get wider publicity? Another thing is that if the story is of national significance, prospective sources might get flooded with inquiries from far and wide, and decide only to respond to a select few. Someone diseminating information in Florida, for instance, probably doesn't care about the Houston Chronicle (if they've ever heard of it).

In fact, these patterns are so prevalent that when something comes up that is counter to them, for instance the ranch owner that reported Dick Cheney's hunting accident to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, the big papers and TV stations get all fussy about it.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

Their biggest problem is that the sports page is run by Longhorns who hate UH and Rice.

If they could fix that, I'd buy the paper now and then. :closedeyes:

[Vertigo58]

Houston's number one embarassment as far as journalism is concerned is The Hou Press. To think that these employees are actually on a salary and spend hours of ignorant interviews on 5th grade educated imbecils is too much. Even more pathetic are the cover pages it displays of some of these misfits of society. Can't count the times there is the "cliche" over aged, tattoo ridden-ex-convict rapper on the front page & their depressing rags to rags story. Just feeding on their own egos. Talk about desperate reporting!

I have only used this paper as a floor cover when painting or to stuff boxes for packaging. Think of all the trees that got chopped down to create this refuse. The only idiots that would take this rag seriously would be the same type that worship overated, mind altering, junk like American Idol. Truth? yes, yes,....Ok its unanimous!

[RedScare]

The only idiots that would take this rag seriously would be the same type that worship overated, mind altering, junk like American Idol. Truth? yes, yes,....Ok its unanimous!

Umm...probably not the same target audience...but you probably already have your mind made up, so I'll leave it alone.

[TheNiche]

Houston's number one embarassment as far as journalism is concerned is The Hou Press. To think that these employees are actually on a salary and spend hours of ignorant interviews on 5th grade educated imbecils is too much. Even more pathetic are the cover pages it displays of some of these misfits of society. Can't count the times there is the "cliche" over aged, tattoo ridden-ex-convict rapper on the front page & their depressing rags to rags story. Just feeding on their own egos. Talk about desperate reporting!

I have only used this paper as a floor cover when painting or to stuff boxes for packaging. Think of all the trees that got chopped down to create this refuse. The only idiots that would take this rag seriously would be the same type that worship overated, mind altering, junk like American Idol. Truth? yes, yes,....Ok its unanimous!

Well I've got to agree with Red that it isn't the same target audience, but I do agree with you that the overwhelming cynicism and frequently petty and accusatory tone gets old quick. The best thing in there is Red Meat.

[RedScare]

I'm not sticking up for the Press either. They used to do a good job, as did the Dallas Observer, of ferretting out cronyism, corruption and other scandals that mainstream news outlets just won't touch. But, when that outfit in Phoenix bought up many of the independent weeklies, icluding the Press and the Observer, they turned them into a surly version of the mainstream press they attack....corporate owned, bottom-lined based, weak, poorly researched advertising receptacles.

I love biting sarcasm as much (or more) as the next guy, and believe that there is NOT enough cynicism and skepticism in this country. However, the Press's liberal formulaic and cliche'd approach is just the mirror image of the conservatives' buzzword laden approach....neither is informative or enlightening.

[TheNiche]

I love biting sarcasm as much (or more) as the next guy, and believe that there is NOT enough cynicism and skepticism in this country. However, the Press's liberal formulaic and cliche'd approach is just the mirror image of the conservatives' buzzword laden approach....neither is informative or enlightening.

Well put!

[dbigtex56]

Can't count the times there is the "cliche" over aged, tattoo ridden-ex-convict rapper on the front page & their depressing rags to rags story. Just feeding on their own egos. Talk about desperate reporting!

Ah, the Chron does basically the same thing, except they prefer overdressed, bejeweled Botoxed whores. You'll find them in Shelley Hodge's column...

[H-Town Man]

Those of you who don't think that a paper can be high quality and do well financially should check out the Dallas Morning News.

As to the comments regarding political leanings, I would contend that the Chronicle is NOT neutral, but does try to give an appearance of neutrality. This is more true of the editorial page than anywhere else. Nick Anderson could easily be the political cartoonist for a left-wing newspaper, and I cannot recall any staff editorials that did not take the liberal side of an issue (at least for those issues that could be divided between liberal and conservative).

On the other hand, all the recent recommendations they have made in presidential elections have been Republican, but read their editorials for a few weeks and tell me if you think any member of that staff votes Republican. Their editorial recommending Bush in 2004 read like a litany of complaints, with the last sentence essentially saying, "But we're recommending him anyway." The way the editorial had been going, it probably should have read, "And we hope no person with the name of Bush even sets foot near the White House ever again."

I really don't expect their views to be any different - the press is an inherently liberal institution - but I can't help but shake my head at the dissemblage and fakery. If I ever had to write an article like that in order to make a living, I would probably go home afterwards, rip up my college diploma, throw away all of my books, and get rid of any mirrors I own so I wouldn't have to look at myself. Even if the editors aren't so much concerned about selling papers as they are pushing readers towards their own views without giving those views away, I don't see how people can fight their cause so dishonestly.

[KinkaidAlum]

I really don't expect their views to be any different - the press is an inherently liberal institution - but I can't help but shake my head at the dissemblage and fakery. If I ever had to write an article like that in order to make a living, I would probably go home afterwards, rip up my college diploma, throw away all of my books, and get rid of any mirrors I own so I wouldn't have to look at myself. Even if the editors aren't so much concerned about selling papers as they are pushing readers towards their own views without giving those views away, I don't see how people can fight their cause so dishonestly.

Ah yes, the old liberal media bias.

I hate that liberal Murdoch Empire.

I hate that liberal Rush Limbaugh and the rest of talk radio.

I hate Pat Robertson and the CBN.

I really hate those liberal clowns at Fox News and their affilliated channels.

Of course, there's really nothing worse than those porgressives that push Union ideals at the Wall Street Journal.

[H-Town Man]

Don't jump to conclusions about me, KinkaidAlum. I didn't say that all the press was liberally biased. I said that the press - as an institution - is inherently liberal. It is what allows the public to mobilize itself against the misdoings of those in power. Freedom of the press is, historically, a liberal idea - it's only been around for a couple centuries - and its tendency has for the most part been towards democratization and the breaking down of established figures and institutions, which I consider a liberal cause.

The reason why most journalists tend to be politically on the left is that journalism attracts left-minded people. They aren't satisfied with how things are, and love the idea of attacking corruption and the establishment. Go hang out at a major journalism school sometime and tell me how many conservatives you see.

The people you name in the media are basically a reactionary movement. After the 60's and 70's, much of the country decided that the press had gone too far. In the process of exposing real corruptions like My Lai and Watergate and championing worthy causes like civil rights, the press had become so cynical of government leaders and traditional American values that one could not take them seriously. This reaction coincided with a larger conservative shift in the country - the "Reagan revolution" and its aftermath. So by the 1990's, a number of new media outlets were arising to offer an alternative - talk radio, Fox News, etc.

So yes, a large portion of today's media is conservative, but in the larger scheme of things, the media will always be predominantly liberal. As well it should.

Edited March 12, 2007 by H-Town Man

[TheNiche]

Ah yes, the old liberal media bias.

I hate that liberal Murdoch Empire.

I hate that liberal Rush Limbaugh and the rest of talk radio.

I hate Pat Robertson and the CBN.

I really hate those liberal clowns at Fox News and their affilliated channels.

Of course, there's really nothing worse than those porgressives that push Union ideals at the Wall Street Journal.

One thing of interest, though, is that if you remove Hannity, O'Reilly, and all the other commentery programs from consideration, what you're left with is subject matter that is presented to the public as 'fair and balanced' when it is clearly not when closely examined. That isn't just true of Fox News (where that is their actual slogan), but also of CNN, as well as much of the mainstream print media. Even NPR fails to make their bias perfectly clear...and I've listened to morning shows where every other story covered is about environmentalism. That's what annoys me about things is not that there is a bias, but that there is no effort put forth to acknowledge it. That also makes them more dangerous. People know enough to take Rush with a grain of salt; do people realize that even the little guy can question the reliability of the NYT, the unofficial newspaper of record?

And like I said before, I trust that it is not just that the reporters or editors are themselves biased, but that they need to leverage emotion in order to sustain high levels of readership, and that the result is an effective bias. ...it is far more easy to make people feel like s*** than to make them proud of who they are and where they've come from. ...it is far more easy to be ever-critical and ever-cynical than it is to acknowledge how much better off even a sub-optimal government is than what a prospective alternative might be; there are no shortage of examples. ...and in some cases, it is just easier to disingenuously spin stories or to find a quotable nutcase in order to either give the illusion of debate and conflict, or even of impending disaster.

[Vertigo58]

Houston's number one embarassment as far as journalism is concerned is The Hou Press. To think that these employees are actually on a salary and spend hours of ignorant interviews on 5th grade educated imbecils is too much. Even more pathetic are the cover pages it displays of some of these misfits of society. Can't count the times there is the "cliche" over aged, tattoo ridden-ex-convict rapper on the front page & their depressing rags to rags story. Just feeding on their own egos. Talk about desperate reporting!

I have only used this paper as a floor cover when painting or to stuff boxes for packaging. Think of all the trees that got chopped down to create this refuse. The only idiots that would take this rag seriously would be the same type that worship overated, mind altering, junk like American Idol. Truth? yes, yes,....Ok its unanimous!

Surprised no one has brought up; but this is one of the only existing rags I know that is very brazen of it's blatant highly racial slurs it uses on a regular basis. Even Mad TV wouldn't go this far.

There must be some kind of waiver or sign off that releases a paper from being sued because these guys sure do get away with it. Any other paper would have been picketed & had Mr Dolcefino or Zindler kicking down the doors for an explanation. Quannel & other anti-defamation groups where are you?

PS, I makes a good flooring for bird droppings under the cage!

[dbigtex56]

And speaking of crappy...

Just when you thought the weekly TV schedule guide couldn't get any worse, the Chron somehow manages to disimprove it. The newest one has shrunk yet again, and is little more than a pamphlet now.

A couple of years ago, when Warner Cable added several channels, the Chron sprang into action - by making its guide smaller. They dropped movie summaries and severely truncated late night coverage. Then, they eliminated late night coverage, and cut weekday coverage to a one-size-fits-all page.

Now even daytime programming is not being covered. You'll be happy to know that, all week, Turner Classic movies is showing "Varied Programs". Gee, I've always wanted to see "Varied Programs"....

Heck, why not just print "Varied Programs" on some fortune-cookie paper slips, and call it their programming schedule?

[texas911]

I agree, the Chronicle is crappy because it has no competition. Houston should and can support 2 newspapers.

[Subdude]

I agree, the Chronicle is crappy because it has no competition. Houston should and can support 2 newspapers.

There's the Houston Press. If you're talking about dailies, very few American cities have two newspapers. Fewer Americans are reading newspapers to begin with. It's a shrinking market.

[Guest Marty]

The New York Times is thinking about where do we stand in the new world of technology ? Should we continue wasting money on pulp/paper or the Internet.

Hardcopy's of the news is going the way of the T Rex

Edited April 3, 2007 by Marty

[Subdude]

Not only is newspaper readership down, but papers have lost a big chuck of their advertising revenue as well.

[Vertigo58]

Not only is newspaper readership down, but papers have lost a big chuck of their advertising revenue as well.

Readership has been down for years and like most people I hate having to deal with old newspaper stacking up taking up room then having to worry about recycling. Just too much hastle hence internet news!