Maybe the Post Gazette is nearing the end of its long, storied run, but I hope not. I read news online and in print; the latter gives me more detail and generally a higher quality product. Example: David Shribman's 8/27 article, "The end of a remarkable family line," about the Kennedy brothers. It was incisive and poignant and reflected the insider knowledge of a veteran reporter. (The article noted that Shribman was the Boston Globe's Washington bureau chief for 10 years.)
I may be able to read this article online but will online-only news sites, with their tiny budgets, be able to afford seasoned reporters and savvy thought pieces like this one?
In my salad days I bussed from Pittsburgh to college in Greenville, workshops in Oneonta, New York, and visits to far-flung friends. The bus station was a grizzled, dim place where you bought your ticket and hoped that the bus was leaving ASAP. My trips to the Pittsburgh station were my first views of homelessness--rumpled men tottering around the edges of the station or huddled in the guest chairs trying to nap before a guard prodded them to leave. I remember vividly a bedraggled man wandering from table to table in the station cafe eating leftover food from plates that customers has just vacated. It's wonderful to have a clean, updated bus station but I feel for the poor souls who found refuge in that old gray place.
Public televsion was intended to provide a serious alternative to television's "vast wasteland", dominated by inane comedies, game shows and other dreck. In many ways it succeeded. Masterpiece Theater, American Masters, Great Performances, Frontline, et al., offer serious adult entertainment and news. Mister Rogers and Sesame Street did the same thing for children's programming.
Now there are hundreds of channels--most of them offering even more dreck, it's true--but with a little effort, a viewer can find something to satisfy her adult palate (IFC, Ovation, History Channel, etc.). If 87% of American homes have access to cable, how can WQED continue to compete? And how many people will make a donation to one station when they're paying a cable provider a steep fee every month for hundreds of channels?
I do support WQED financially but I don't watch it as often as I used to. I could say the reason is too many Doo Wop specials but the reality is I have too many options.
Recent Comments
I may be able to read this article online but will online-only news sites, with their tiny budgets, be able to afford seasoned reporters and savvy thought pieces like this one?
Now there are hundreds of channels--most of them offering even more dreck, it's true--but with a little effort, a viewer can find something to satisfy her adult palate (IFC, Ovation, History Channel, etc.). If 87% of American homes have access to cable, how can WQED continue to compete? And how many people will make a donation to one station when they're paying a cable provider a steep fee every month for hundreds of channels?
I do support WQED financially but I don't watch it as often as I used to. I could say the reason is too many Doo Wop specials but the reality is I have too many options.