var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Meathamper
May 13, 2009 3:28 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Man, that picture is the world's worst subway car ever. How do those passengers manage to survive the litter?

Reply
14 replies
\"user-pic\"
MisteriosaNYC
May 13, 2009 5:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bearded Rapper:


uhh.. no this is not worlds worst subway car...


im a seasoned veteran of the NYC subway system. until you have wandered into a subway car that has a fresh steaming pile of feces on a seat in the far corner, a cart of stinking belongings rolling around in a shopping cart, a homeless man sleeping in the seats in other end of the subway car, and another homeless man sitting in the middle of the floor naked, then you can talk. (yes, this has happened to me)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
May 13, 2009 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MisteriosaNYC: Or humping. Ugly people humping.
You'd think Manhattan would have standards: cute people humping in public, only. C'MON, NYC!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ghede
May 13, 2009 4:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bearded Rapper: Please. A little paper does not a filthy subway car make. Look at those floors! Look at those seats! Even with the paper, that is the most comfortable subway car I have ever seen. Hell, the paper adds something extra, free reading material!

Now if all the papers in that car simultaneous scattered all their pages throughout the car, were balled up and urinated on, I might agree with you, but they are relatively whole.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 13, 2009 4:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ghede: Seriously, that subway car makes some of the ones on the DC metro look like zombie movie sets...and I largely regard the DC metro as being relatively clean and clutter free!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dirk
May 13, 2009 3:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bearded Rapper: You don't take the subway much, do you?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
May 13, 2009 4:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dirk: I'm pretty sure they don't have one where he's lived, or visited. But he heard someplace that they're quite dangerous and packed to the gills with illegal immigrants, or at least swarthy foreigner types. Non-European swarthy foreigner types.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
takes_so_little
May 13, 2009 3:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bearded Rapper: So, you don't feel this picture lives up to it's caption, \"world's worst subway car ever?\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nycaviation
May 13, 2009 3:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bearded Rapper: I think that's a London subway car, where people still read newspapers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Yankees368
May 13, 2009 3:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bearded Rapper: Looks pretty nice to me. Handles to hold, padded seats, no bums, and armrests!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
veg-o-matic
May 13, 2009 3:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bearded Rapper: Yeah, sans the ticker-tape parade, it actually looks kind of nice.. what with the shiny, presumably un-peed-upon floors and intact seats.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Deleriumb32
May 13, 2009 3:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PartOfIMAXConspiracy_GitEmSteveDave:
Oooh! Padded seats will soak up the urine to make sure it doesn't drip on the floor and dirty my shoes!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Sean Beattie
May 13, 2009 3:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I love and fully agree with the tag on this post.


The newspaper industry is a lot like McNulty when everyone looks at him *that* way: \"What the f*** did I do?\"


....The Wire was better than The Sopranos. There, I said it.


And.....begin the flame war.

Reply
14 replies
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
May 14, 2009 6:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sean Beattie:
One of the best shows I've ever seen, the Wire. Boyfriend, who has never truly liked a tv show, loved it.

We finished season five about a month ago. I am ready to rewatch. I miss the Wire.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ElleDriver
May 13, 2009 6:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sean Beattie: I only finished watching the fifth season a few nights ago, and I'm still reeling. (Particularly over Omar. Holy crap.)

And yes, The Wire does definitely triumph over the Sopranos.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RedSonSuperDave
May 13, 2009 7:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElleDriver: Just started watching The Wire two weeks ago. I'm loving it, and I'm glad to hear that it's going to get even better. (I've only watched the first season so far.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
diesel54
May 13, 2009 6:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sean Beattie: Great show in every way. I got started on it right before the fifth season. I watched the first 4 seasons in about a week (I was in college, lots of free time), and was ready when the fifth started. I still miss it a lot.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
theblackdog
May 13, 2009 5:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sean Beattie: I absolutely enjoy The Wire way more than The Sopranos. I bought the entire series for $80 thanks to an Amazon Gold Box deal figuring that it would be good since it took place in Baltimore, and if I hated it, I could sell it to someone else.

I am getting ready to start watching season 3 now...totally hooked.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sean Beattie
May 13, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@theblackdog:


You're only starting season 3? Get ready; it gets truly awesome (in the actual definition) starting with the third season. The fourth is my favorite, though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KarateMedia
May 13, 2009 5:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sean Beattie: No flames here. The Wire was an incredible show. You have to trust it and allow yourself to get into it - or at least I did. When I first saw season 1, I liked it, but it wasn't exactly what I was looking for at the time. But it stuck in my head and I eventually came back to it, and found myself in love with it.

Seasons 1 and 2 are great, but the show hit its stride with season 3, and just blew it out of the park with season 4.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
May 13, 2009 5:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KarateMedia: Yup.
I caught a few eps and quit. Too many characters and story lines running all over the place, and not enough free time on my part.
Then a friend slapped me upside the head and told me to go back and view 'em again, only thru 4-5 eps, and he'd buy me dinner if I didn't like.
Needless to say, dinner was on me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
May 13, 2009 4:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sean Beattie: I need to Netflix The Wire, because The Soporanos BORED ME TO DEATH.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sean Beattie
May 13, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nakedscience:


Yes, yes you do. It's got plots that don't pay off in a single season, characters you see sporadically becoming key pieces of puzzles, and honest storytelling with no cop-out ending. David Chase is clown shoes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
May 13, 2009 4:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sean Beattie: No flames from me. The Wire will be sorely missed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nycaviation
May 13, 2009 3:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sean Beattie: I concur. They were both great, but The Wire's stories and dialogue were a little better I think. And it was more consistent. The Wire had a couple of weak episodes, but The Sopranos had a couple of weak entire seasons.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sean Beattie
May 13, 2009 4:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nycaviation:


Ironically enough, it was a criminally underwatched show when it was on-air. I know next to no on who's actually seen it, though anyone who has, has liked it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mr. Guy
May 13, 2009 3:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sean Beattie: The Wire is better than the sopranos. I'd be surprised if many people disagreed with you there.

I finished season 5 on netflix about a month ago, and immediately went back and started it from the beginning again. its' infinitely re-watchable, not only because of the incredible writing and directing, but because the actors who play them- Bunk, Omar, Marlo, Slim Charles, Bodie, Snoop, Carcetti, Stringer, Wee-Bay, and so on- are just magnetic.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
May 13, 2009 3:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, we see how well protecting your \"content\" works for media companies (ahem RIAA and MPAA). It's the age of digital distribution, twitter, etc. You can't sue everyone.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Megladon
May 13, 2009 3:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Is anyone else wondering how other print media is doing? Popular mechanics and wired and several other publications are crammed full of ads, or even \"special advertising sections\" that i normal just rip out and toss before i even begin reading. I know playboy is in the shitter, but they only charge about 1$ per issue if you subscribe, but then thats about the same price as alot of the other big titles out there. How long before I lose my paper copy of wired to read on the crapper?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
theblackdog
May 13, 2009 7:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Megladon: I have noticed that Maxim has gotten thinner because they don't have as many advertisements as before.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
VeryFancyBunny
May 13, 2009 7:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Megladon: You should hop over to Gawker and read their daily \"Media Crack\" column, or their posts tagged with \"Great Magazine Die-Off.\" It's pretty depressing.

Six years ago, I was thisclose to switching my major from English to magazine journalism. Sure glad I didn't! I have a good job in applied linguistics / language testing now, and I read about magazine layoffs on my lunch break.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
VeryFancyBunny
May 13, 2009 7:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@VeryFancyBunny: I should add, though, that I LIKE magazines and I still have several paper ones I enjoy reading. I hate hearing about magazine layoffs. I'm just, y'know, glad it's not me.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HiPwr
May 13, 2009 3:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Quality has reached an all time low with a media that is overwhelmingly in the bag for the current administration. Whatever happened to media being a watchdog over the powerful?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
May 13, 2009 3:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HiPwr: Agreed. Pretending that the incredibly slanted leftist reporting had no effect on readership is ignoring (another) elephant in the room.

The media has always been left-leaning, but the rising popularity of righty Fox News caused the rest of the media to jump the shark into pure liberal-mouthpiece mode. Fox responded by doing the same for the right, and now we have no useful media at all.

Everyone's just concerned about reporting on Obama and Biden's lunch, or Obama's walk around the neighborhood with Michelle.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zandar
May 13, 2009 9:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coach Cal Is My Dream Weaver: I think it's more just a case of \"Finally we have another family to gawk at,\" not \"Incredibly slanted leftist..\" you won't get incredibly leftist anything from an American newspaper, at least any I have read. Believe me, this is coming from a Slanted Leftist who would love to see more of it.

Instead I get to read treasures like Cal Thomas. What a leftie!

By the way, Obama is not a leftist. Tim Geithner should have tipped you off about that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HiPwr
May 14, 2009 2:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zandar: Obama is a leftist. Eric Holder should have tipped you off about that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
May 14, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HiPwr: The powerful bought off most of the media and now use it further their own biased agendas.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
crashfrog
May 13, 2009 7:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coach Cal Is My Dream Weaver: The media has always been left-leaning, but the rising popularity of righty Fox News caused the rest of the media to jump the shark into pure liberal-mouthpiece mode.

I'm sorry but that bears no relationship to reality. The rise of Fox News certainly stimulated a change in the media - a change by becoming more conservative, which is why incompetent, inexperienced hacks like Bill Kristol and Ross Doubthat write editorials in the nation's most prominent newspapers, Glen Beck was on CNN for years, even liberal MSNBC runs conservative Joe Scarborough, the only guests on the sunday talk shows are conservatives and Republicans, and so on.

\"Liberal media\" is a myth; it's one of the myths that conservatives use to perpetuate their own victimhood. The truth is that newspapers are failing because, for three decades, they've responded to fictitious charges of \"liberal bias\" by giving conservative lies the same emphasis as factual truth.

That, for instance, is why the so-called \"liberal media\" will refer to waterboarding and sleep-deprivation techniques as torture only in quotes - because conservatives say it's not, now, and the so-called \"liberal media\" has to put that equal to the truth.

People aren't buying newspapers because you can't trust what they say - not because they're liberal, but because they're not liberal. The constant genuflecting to conservative concerns can't be made consistent with reporting factual reality.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 13, 2009 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I started watching the fifth season of The Wire, and stopped because it just got too depressing to watch. It really is the state of my industry, and the people who aren't in charge, who are really just trying to make a living doing what they enjoy, are trying to keep their heads above water, and avoid scrutiny of the bosses who are happy to give out pink slips.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
lalaland13
May 13, 2009 9:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I think we're in the same industry, and while the Internet sure didn't help, the idea that your paper is a failing paper if you aren't making a 20 or 30 percent profit is depressing. In a lot of industries, a 5 to 10 percent profit is darn good.

Some of the smaller papers will survive, since they're making profits. Assuming they aren't shut down by the bottom-line freaks. I understand pulling the plug on those bleeding money, but some of this is just crap.

Newsrooms are often understaffed and overworked, with a lot of chaos that only sometimes comes together properly. And the pay? The Onion said it best: [www.theonion.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 14, 2009 4:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lalaland13: It is so depressing. And all we can do is ride it out and hopefully it'll get better soon. I remember the newsroom I last worked in was perpetually understaffed. A week after my boss announced we were finally at full staff, someone put in their notice. Trying to do the work of so many people with so few people...we were always stressed, always pressed for time.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MisteriosaNYC
May 13, 2009 6:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265:


i dont know if anyone has mentioned it, but David SImon did an interview with bill moyer's a few weeks ago. it wwas really good.


[www.pbs.org]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KarateMedia
May 13, 2009 5:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: \"It really is the state of my industry\"

The irony being that Simon appears to have based it largely on his experiences in the 90s. I love the Wire, and loved the 5th season (as a former J-school undergrad w/ friends in the news business, I really dig this stuff) - but it's worth it to search for some of the articles about Simon's supposed vendetta against the Sun, and how he incorporated that into season 5. Even if you don't completely believe his detractors, it adds an interesting layer to the season...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 13, 2009 5:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KarateMedia: I really appreciated the fifth season especially because journalists are often maligned for things that aren't totally their fault...your newspaper swims north, you better know what you're getting into if you tend to swim south. I particularly enjoyed it from the perspective of the young reporters. It's not their fault that older, more experienced people are getting canned, and I'm glad the fifth season didn't portray it that way.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Little Wooden Boy
May 13, 2009 3:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Sadly, all five seasons of the show pretty much depict the exact same thing that you just described, just in different industries (police, unions, education, local government and journalism).


Easily one of the best shows ever made though.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 13, 2009 3:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What they need to do is break up media conglomerates. It was the commoditization of the news that turned it into disposable junk. If newspapers were just newspapers, and not a vehicle for funneling profits to a parent company whose sole purpose was to give dividends to stockholders, they would have a better product, and people would pay for it. All the news is now is sensationalist junk meant just to drive clickthroughs.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JohnsRUs
May 13, 2009 3:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I like the new tag, \"The Wire was a badass show.\" I can only hope this is a recurring story here on Consumerist.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Scrutinizer
May 13, 2009 3:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I read the Hartford Courant most of my life. In the 80's they cut back local coverage while still claiming to be your local paper. Through the 90's and into this decade locally produced news was replaced with wire articles and ads. Then about six or seven years ago they cut columnist and reporters just as the internet was taking hold.


Why should I pay for reprints of wire service stories when I can get them for free. I still subscribe to a local paper because they write stories and have well reasoned editorials that I can't get elsewhere.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
rolandsherpa
May 13, 2009 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Scrutinizer: You are spot on! I can see two classes of newspapers in the future. National and local (think USA Today/WSJ and \"Small Village\" Times). It's not that you can't get national news from CNN.com, MSNBC.com, etc. it is more that people like print (imagine having 4 laptops at the breakfast table!). Then you can read the local paper, supported by local companies and readers, to get the local news. Does anyone remember when the school cafeteria's published their lunches for the next week in the local paper? Or the special 10th Anniversary events at Ray's Hardware?

There is also a 3rd class of paper that will survive, though as a niche operator. The free papers, like Westword here in Denver, that actually do investigative journalism (almost always scooping the local Denver Post by weeks...sometimes months!) and provide event listings for the metro area.

I despise companies that 'blame the internet' for their own failures. If brick and mortar stores provide good, knowledgeable service and a great customer experience, people will shop there.

If newspapers provided relevant and current content, people would subscribe. I love college hockey and there are 3 top notch (usually ranked in the top 20...and DU and CC are perennial national title contenders) programs in the area. The Denver post ignores the Air Force Academy completely, reports on Colorado College about 1/4 of the time and has a 1/8 page article on University of Denver (pulled from the wire services!) after each game. I get better information on local events, sports and other news from online sources...usually for free!

So, the internet has Better Content at a Lower Price. That's why it works.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gparlett
May 13, 2009 4:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Scrutinizer: When I moved to Dallas seven years ago The Dallas Morning News was an amazing value. 35 cents and it had hours of information in it, including some of best sports and religion reporting in the country... now it's $1 for the weekday edition and it's half the size.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Mr_Human
May 13, 2009 4:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

He sounds still pissed that he got bought out. That seems to be coloring most of his assertions. It's unlikely that keeping him and the others onboard would have helped in the long run. People simply have moved away from newspapers and cheaper online ad revenue hasn't made up the difference for the more expensive ads lost in print.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Stephmo
May 13, 2009 4:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mr_Human: You know that he wasn't exactly hurting when he got bought out, right? In 1992, he'd finished with his book, Homicide - and that turned into a best-seller and a TV show. I don't think he's bitter or pissed about losing his job.

I think his point - and rightfully so - is that the buyouts and layoffs have been going on since before the big bad internet. Which means that newspaper has been losing for a long time. Let's see, mid-90s...what had a stranglehold by then? Oh yeah, cable news.

The truth is that we're used to 24/7 news cycles and print is always old...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TEW
May 13, 2009 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have said for years that the newspapers can be very successful but they chose not to be. The stories I get in mine are wire reprints and they are more than a day old. The local coverage is very limited and if you take away the obituaries/ local ads it would be almost nonexistent. In this day in age I know there is massive fraud and corruption but the papers won't expose any of it. To me the local papers are like stores trying to compete with Wal-mart on price. It is bound to fail because you will never match Wal-mart's prices so it is best to try and compete in a different area.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
May 13, 2009 4:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's annoying that the basic, no-frills paper, done well, not only did well, they did fantastically, with a 40% ROI. That's crazy-high (for legitimate, non-bubble-fueled businesses).
The leveraging, the consolidating, the acquiring as part of a print/broadcast empire, is what killed many of these papers. And also caused formerly good papers to veer towards sensationalism over solid reporting, alienating the types of smarties who subscribe to home delivery.
About the only time Bigger Is Better, it seems, is in the bedroom.*

* And I am. Yes, I am!

(that's what mom says)

(wait - that didn't come out the way I meant...)
Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
wildhare
May 13, 2009 4:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Once our news media is gone, or just about gone, and all the news you can get is on TV and internet, here today, poof gone tomorrow, we will really be living in a NWO. Hate to sound paranoiac and dooms day, but I think this was premeditated. Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, their designs have shed the old skin for a new much more flexible one: pop media monopoly.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Borax-Johnson
May 13, 2009 4:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coach


You hit the nail on the head - it's all supply and demand. The vast majority of the public does not demand teh slanted bias that is being provided.


I wouldn't mind if the media just admitted what most can clearly see and get on with it. But to expect that the aveage Joe will beleive their pleadings of \"we have no bias\" is laughable.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bbagdan
May 13, 2009 4:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Printed newspapers are a ludicrously inefficient medium for delivering their value and as a result are terrible for the natural environment. Good riddance.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
LoganAdams
May 13, 2009 5:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bbagdan: Oh, and that computer is perfectly harmless? Do you power it with a human-run bike or something?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
WelcomeToMyWorld
May 13, 2009 4:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The printers unions are at least PART of the problem, probably a major part. While most of you are talking about the delivery of the news, I'm talking about the production of the newspaper.


I work in the printing industry, and I've spent a major part of my life in printing. What I've seen over the last 30-odd years is that most of the unionized printers are going or already gone. But the non-union printers have found ways to adapt and evolve with the new technologies.


Upgrading of equipment, employee training and cross-training, staying on top of new technologies and methods, reducing waste, keeping a sharp eye on material costs, these are all essential things today. \"Lean\" management is not just a catchword, it's the way to keep your doors open. You will never find lean management objectives written into a union contract because it's not in the union's interest to think that way.


*end of rant*

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 13, 2009 5:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Harry Pothead: I'm confused by your logic.

If the unions are gone or going, replaced by non-union \"lean management\", how can you blame unions for the continued shutdown of newspapers?

Your own words suggest that the union/\"lean management\" model is irrelevant.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
gparlett
May 13, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

David Simon is a genius. He wrote an essay about the death of the newspaper for Esquire a while ago that is among the best I've read. [www.esquire.com]

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
May 13, 2009 5:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Scrutinizer (above) makes a very good point above. If newspapers want to claim that the Internet killed them, why don't they stop carrying all wire stories and hire back journalists to write stories?

If it turns out that nobody wants to read stories written by journalists, then so be it ... but that's not the Internets fault, that's a design fault of the business model.

But I doubt it.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 13, 2009 5:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why pay to read liberal clap-trap by opinionated journalists when you can read slightly less opinionated, more-researched garbage in a blog? Maybe if more newspapers actually printed news instead of just blaring their political agendas more people would read them.

Of course, certain consumer blogs seem to be heading that way too, pretty soon there wont be anyone left that can think for themselves.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jbrecken
May 13, 2009 5:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The internet didn't kill newspaper; television did. It's just taken this long for the subscribers born before TV was their main source of news to die off.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Inglix_the_Mad
May 13, 2009 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just goes to show how stupid it is to sacrifice everything for the Laissez-Faire Capitalist Holy Grail: short-term profits.

How many companies in America, other than a couple in the electronics / computer industry, really invest in the long term anymore?

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
takes_so_little
May 13, 2009 6:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Yeah, Manhattan, world capital of cute. I think that's on the chamber of commerce sign when you cross the bridge.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
kwsventures
May 13, 2009 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Newspaper dying a slow and painful death much like GM, Ford and Chrysler.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
quail
May 13, 2009 7:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

He does have a point. There are many companies that were bled when they were profitable in order to entice even more Wall Street investors. Got to get the stock price up, you know? In the long haul talent is either fired or it leaves looking for better. The company's neglected infrastructure becomes even more costly to upgrade. And satisfied customers are slowly wittled down.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
hamburglar
May 13, 2009 9:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Amazing quote from the original article I'm surprised Consumerist didn't note:

If the last quarter century has taught us anything - and admittedly, with too many of us, I doubt it has - it's that free-market capitalism, absent social imperatives and responsible regulatory oversight, can produce durable goods and services, glorious profits, and little of lasting social value. Airlines, manufacturing, banking, real estate -is there a sector of the American economy where laissez-faire theories have not burned the poor, the middle class and the consumer, while bloating the rich and mortgaging the very future of the industry, if not the country itself? I'm pressed to think of one.

David Simon for the win.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Claytons
May 14, 2009 4:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Season 5 was such a huge letdown to me. I feel like Simon's agenda was more personal, perhaps, and the writing and suffered dearly as a result. I know it was cut short a few episode, but that's not a good excuse for how much season 5 lacked in the quality of the previous seasons.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Meathamper
May 14, 2009 1:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dirk: I contribute to global warming via the use of my Escalade Camry.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Meathamper
May 14, 2009 1:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bearded Rapper: Arghhh... I meant Camry. Damn backspace button...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
knyghtryda
May 14, 2009 2:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I say let them die. We need more direct reporting, more on the scene writers and photographers, and definitely more coverage of international issues, all of which tend to be rather lacking in your everyday newspaper. If I can hit up boingboing, digg, slashdot and the like for all my news, why the hell do I want ink on my fingers at this point? The only reason I can see is if the paper was local and catered that community/town/city. Otherwise... its just a waste of trees.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
May 14, 2009 2:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I still subscribe to the paper here (weekends and holidays only, though) but I've been rethinking it, because by the time I get it, almost half of it is stuff I've already read online.

I can't seem to wean myself off the Sunday paper though.

Reply
","","");