Comments on: Everything Old Is New Again

By: john

john — Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:35:51 +0000

Look, I didn’t say the Statesman was perfect, and I certainly can’t defend every decision they make . But if they went away all of you, and as anyone who cares about the general workings of the city and state, would be screwed.

My suggestion is instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, write letters to the editor and make constructive suggestions. Be an active reader. Because Boise and Idaho would be worse off without the Statesman, and that is a fact.

ED NOTE–John, check out some previous comments. I agree with you we need a good newspaper, the Statesman is all we have, and the rest of the media follows their lead.

By: john

john — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 15:23:05 +0000

You guys are hilarious. If the Statesman or other newspapers ceased to exist, how would the bloggers, radio, or TV news get their information?

Just look at this blog. It seems that half of the things written about come from The Statesman, or most recently Thrive. Boise’s public radio station basically just reads copy from the Statesman each morning. I even saw a Channel 7 reporter carrying around a copy of the paper under his arm while reporting at The Statehouse.

No one does the kind of original reporting newspapers do, Statesman included. Because of this, they’ll be here for years to come.

ED NOTE–We do little original reporting. We are a blog/commentary and don’t pretend to be much else. You must admit the Statesman refused to mention a single word about the 1st amendment story on Dwight Scarbrough and the homeland security hassle over signs.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:48:20 +0000

Here’s a challenge for your sleuthing skills, GUARDIAN: try to find a newspaper, anywhere in the U.S. of A., that’s more expensive, delivered, than the Statesman.

(Several years back, I wrote a letter to the editor, making that same challenge. To their credit, they published the letter. But there was never a response.)

The Statesman is currently $3.60 per week (7 day delivery).

By comparison:
Deseret News (SLC) $3.32/week
Oregonian (Portland) $3.50/week
Spokesman-Review (Spokane) $14.50/month ($3.35/week)
Seattle Post-Intelligencer $3.40/week
Seattle Times (ditto)
Denver Post $2.30/week (when paying for 13 weeks)

(I looked for “standard” rates at the big-city papers – NY Times, L.A. Times, etc. All I could find were introductory rates. I’m speculating it’s NEVER more than The Statesman.)

Is it the quality of the product? Or the lack of competition? (As newsprint continues to lose its significance, their market share will continue to decrease, I predict.)

By: john

john — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:41:43 +0000

Comments overheard in some of Boises most secret spots:

“Guardian has the best POOP on planet Boise!”

“Dude, check out the poop on boiseguardian.com. It totally rocks.”

“I don’t need no stinkin Statesman poop, boiseguardian.com poop smears the competition”

” You should stop consuming “liberal media” poop, and try some boiseguardian.com poop.

Well there it is folks, straight from Boise’s soft underbelly

By: Ginny

Ginny — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:35:04 +0000

It’s true, the print news market is getting sparse. I don’t get The Statesman because when I did get it, I never read the darn thing.

By: porcupine

porcupine — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:06:51 +0000

I got some Bad news for the Statesman…TELEVISION, INTERNET, and BLOGS are not going away, and they are still going to lose market share…. It’s just a fact!

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:48:55 +0000

As someone who often longs for the “good old days,” sounds like the comments of the Guardian on the effort of The Statesman to return to the designs of its past ought to be welcome news for all of us old timers. I’m anxious to see if it works! (Let us Blog readers know what you think in, say, mid-May when the transition is a month old).