Thank you!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Thank you!

    Today is the last day of the "free" online Globe and I will not pay (as I'm sure many others will not too) for access to the site.

    I found this forum very useful and cathartic for exercising my anger, frustration, hurt and feelings in general.  It was great to get adult perspectives that gave me pause to think and look at my way of thinking in a different way. 

    So, for those of you that came here to offer me your advice - Thank you!

    Wink

    P.S. The Herald tried this online for a fee before the Globe, it failed and the Herald is now once again "free"
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 2ada63d622e89774a9fdcbc90527ab8e. Show 2ada63d622e89774a9fdcbc90527ab8e's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    It's been good to "cross paths", in an electronic sense, with you also. Perhaps at least some of the commenting sites will stay outside the pay to play barrier, or that revisions to the plan will be made over time.

    Best of luck in all things.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ambergirl. Show ambergirl's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    Roger, Boston.com is still free.  It is bostonglobe.com that will be charging.  So the forums are safe : )
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    In Response to Re: Thank you!:
    [QUOTE]Roger, Boston.com is still free.  It is bostonglobe.com that will be charging.  So the forums are safe : )
    Posted by ambergirl[/QUOTE]

    I hope your right! I didn't read it that way........Foot in mouth
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from kargiver. Show kargiver's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    Hey, RT, Dottie posted something today about this - I think in Parents, General, Hello All.  bostonglobe.com is going to be something you have to pay for, but boston.com will remain free, as I understand it so I think the forums will remain free.

    ETA:  Sorry, that wasn't the right thread, but I'll find it.

    Here is the relevant excerpt from BDCDottie:

    On the pay issue: That's right, the new site, BostonGlobe.com, is going to start charging for access sometime in October. It's free now so people can see if they like it; you just have to register. When the subscriptions start, it will cost $3.99 a week, but if you get home delivery of the Globe, even if it's just the Sunday Globe, then BostonGlobe.com is free.

    Boston.com stays the way it is. It still has lots of Globe content; all of sports, all of the suburban news, movie and TV reviews, restaurant reviews, recipes, travel stories, all breaking news, all of the blogs, etc. But yes, there are some stories and columns that are only on BostonGlobe.com.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    In Response to Re: Thank you!:
    [QUOTE]Hey, RT, Dottie posted something today about this - I think in Parents, General, Hello All.  bostonglobe.com is going to be something you have to pay for, but boston.com will remain free, as I understand it so I think the forums will remain free. ETA:  Sorry, that wasn't the right thread, but I'll find it. Here is the relevant excerpt from BDCDottie: On the pay issue: That's right, the new site, BostonGlobe.com, is going to start charging for access sometime in October. It's free now so people can see if they like it; you just have to register. When the subscriptions start, it will cost $3.99 a week, but if you get home delivery of the Globe, even if it's just the Sunday Globe, then BostonGlobe.com is free. Boston.com stays the way it is. It still has lots of Globe content; all of sports, all of the suburban news, movie and TV reviews, restaurant reviews, recipes, travel stories, all breaking news, all of the blogs, etc. But yes, there are some stories and columns that are only on BostonGlobe.com.
    Posted by kargiver[/QUOTE]



    UndecidedSurprisedSealedFoot in mouthEmbarassed
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from reindeergirl. Show reindeergirl's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    RT and others who aren't subscribing,

    Where will you get your news from?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from kargiver. Show kargiver's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    I watch TV and listen to the radio to get the news (various networks); I never keep up online.

    RT, I hope you won't be Embarassed.  The reason Dottie posted that was that we were all asking about the pay thing and how it would impact the forums in various sections.  I didn't even KNOW there were two sites, boston.com and bostonglobe.com, until about a week ago.  I thought boston.com WAS the globe.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from reindeergirl. Show reindeergirl's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    I like the print editions because I feel you get more complete stories. Except for places like NPR, I don't get what I need from broadcasting. For example - the Spotlight Reports. YMMV. However, I admit to being a news junkie.

    Anyway, it's 10/1/11. The forums are free. I hope each and every one of you remain. I so value your comments.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from kargiver. Show kargiver's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    I am so not a news junkie.  In fact, when I was single I never watched or read the news at all.  Well, that's not entirely true.  If something HUGE happened (in my mind that's "real" news), I'd hear about it at work and then read a story or turn on the news until I knew the details.  Then, off, again.  Most things considered newsworthy is gossip as far as I'm concerned, stuff that isn't really any of my business.  I generally only enjoy knowing things that I can use to make decisions.  Knowing someone got shot somewhere last night isn't information I can use.  If I knew the person, I don't need to watch the news to know all about it.  If I don't know the person, the news doesn't impact me other than to allow me to say, "Oh, that's too bad for that family."  I can live without that knowledge, and that family has no knowledge of whether I watch or not so what's the point?  I watch the news with DH, now, because I enjoy discussing news topics with him, not the news in and of itself, generally speaking.

    I hope everyone stays, too!  I think the way the Globe rolled out the change was very confusing.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from reindeergirl. Show reindeergirl's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    With every bit of information we receive and send, we can help make a better world.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from kargiver. Show kargiver's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    Depends on whether that information is ours business or the business of those we send it to...or not.  Boundaries are all but lost today.  A big loss imo.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from reindeergirl. Show reindeergirl's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    Knowledge is power. When we read about a shooting that night not concern us - it does, precisely because of those boundaries. And we can help be part of the solution to, for example (and just one example) young people killing young people. Another - I may think occupying Wall Street will come to naught, but who knows? We may have a nin-violent revolution on our hands, one that will restore economic power to the middle-class and the poor.

    But how does this relate to the Relationships forum, besides how we interact with the social culture in general, and with finding a partner in particular ... I like an informed partner, one who cares about what's happening outside of his cocoon. When I go on a date and the guys says to me something like "Oh, I don't care about current events; what do I care about history, it's already happened," that's an immediate turn-off for me. No matter how alluring I may otherwise have found him, I have no desire for him from that point on.

    Oh, I suppose I inherited this from my parents, politically-active Stevenson Democrats, and local activists (town-wide) after that. Their actions had me loving activism (although I hope I had come to a good deal of this on my own, too).
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from kargiver. Show kargiver's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    I agree with the gist of your sentiments.  I think, however, we've blurred the line as a society between gossip and news.  Knowledge is power.  Knowledge we should have, that's OURS to have if we want it, is power for good.  Knowledge that is none of our business is power, but not for good.

    As far as how it relates to the Relationship forums, that's different.  People who start threads are choosing to make their business everyone's business.  Your knowledge of your life is yours to keep personal and private or give away.  But, if I find out something about you and start a thread about it, that's not OK.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from reindeergirl. Show reindeergirl's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    I do understand your POV, kar, but I feel that would apply to the gossip you mentioned, or to prurient interests. A shooting, however far away from me, is in my interests, because of its ramifications for the general culture.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    Wow! I was wrong...the site is still here...cooooolllll.....see you all here....

    I also read the Drudge Report and papers from around the country & world via...onlinenewspapers.com

    By posting here there is no gossip, only hearsay......the "poster" chooses which details to include and omit from a post................

    "History, is nothing more than what you are told!"

    "Consider the source!"

    "The devil is in the details" Ross Perot


    .........let's discuss!   Wink

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Amethyst2. Show Amethyst2's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    I have been quite the activist in the past, not so much nowadays.  I do keep up with the news, because like reindeergirl, I think that what goes on around me does have an effect on me.  I do see an broad, social connection.  When I read a tory about a shooting of a young person, for example, I think about how many guns have gotten in the area, and wonder how to protect people around me from something awful happening.  In my town forums page on boston dot com, there's a discussion going on about drugs getting into the area, and the effect its had.  I see kar's point, too, that the boundaries between gossip and news is getting increasingly blurred.  I don't care about Brittany Spears' love life!  That's not news!  The Wall Street occupation (and what is about to happen right here in Boston) *is* news...it's a reflection of frustrations we're all feeling...
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from reindeergirl. Show reindeergirl's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    "History, is nothing more than what you are told!"

    "Consider the source!"

    "The devil is in the details" Ross Perot
    ---

    All good reasons for getting our news from many sources.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from kargiver. Show kargiver's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    What is really news regarding violence is what we can use - statistics.  But, how boring.  No cereal or cars will be sold because Channel 5 runs a "story" on shootings per capita and what is being done (or not done) about it.  A story about one shooting does not give you the real picture, boring old numbers tell that story, and numbers with boring facts don't sell ad time - police tape and crime scene photos, crying mothers, etc., do. 

    I think the "news" gives us a false idea of knowing what's happening in our world because it isn't driven to inform us, it's driven by selling ad space just like every other entertainment outlet.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    In Response to Re: Thank you!:
    [QUOTE]What is really news regarding violence is what we can use - statistics.  But, how boring.  No cereal or cars will be sold because Channel 5 runs a "story" on shootings per capita and what is being done (or not done) about it.  A story about one shooting does not give you the real picture, boring old numbers tell that story, and numbers with boring facts don't sell ad time - police tape and crime scene photos, crying mothers, etc., do.  I think the "news" gives us a false idea of knowing what's happening in our world because it isn't driven to inform us, it's driven by selling ad space just like every other entertainment outlet.
    Posted by kargiver[/QUOTE]

    You hit the nail on the head Kar!
    99.9% of the "news" IS entertainment!
    Today Show, GMA & Early Show pure "fluff" no reporters, no news - entertainment and titillation for the masses!
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    In Response to Re: Thank you!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thank you! : You hit the nail on the head Kar! 99.9% of the "news" IS entertainment! Today Show, GMA & Early Show pure "fluff" no reporters, no news - entertainment and titillation for the masses!
    Posted by RogerTaylor[/QUOTE]

    Slow down here ... this has more to do with the watering down of the definition of "news" , the all encompassing meaning of news, and the acceptance and legitimization of the satirization of news.   News comes in all shapes, sizes, forms, mediums, addressing everything from the lowest common denominator on up.

    So I think when you say that "news is enterainment" or use examples of GMA and The Today Show, etc. (and you can ask me to put my hand on a Bible and take an oath as to the fact I have *never* watched either of those shows -- barely knew who Katie Couric was when she became a news anchor, and that the tv was *never* on weekday mornings when I was growing up as both of my parents worked outside the home) you are addressing the "masses", as you said.

    And there are *many* categories of news.  Most people associate news with current and world events and politics.  There is news in the arts, sciences, business, publishing, technology, fashion, design, food, and the list goes on and one and on.  What you are referring to is "celebrity news"  -- and what you seem to be saying is that the fascination with celebrity news is being marketed to the masses and has caused a large percentage of people to *care* about that form of news.   And I agree.   But I do not think that this translates to "news is entertainment" and that there is no other news out here.   Plenty of us ignore celebrity news and don't consider it news at all.  

    As I said, I agree with the basic premise, but not without putting parameters around it.   IMHO, of course.  :D

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    In Response to Re: Thank you!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thank you! : Slow down here ... this has more to do with the watering down of the definition of "news" , the all encompassing meaning of news, and the acceptance and legitimization of the satirization of news.   News comes in all shapes, sizes, forms, mediums, addressing everything from the lowest common denominator on up. So I think when you say that "news is enterainment" or use examples of GMA and The Today Show, etc. (and you can ask me to put my hand on a Bible and take an oath as to the fact I have *never* watched either of those shows -- barely knew who Katie Couric was when she became a news anchor, and that the tv was *never* on weekday mornings when I was growing up as both of my parents worked outside the home) you are addressing the "masses", as you said. And there are *many* categories of news.  Most people associate news with current and world events and politics.  There is news in the arts, sciences, business, publishing, technology, fashion, design, food, and the list goes on and one and on.  What you are referring to is "celebrity news"  -- and what you seem to be saying is that the fascination with celebrity news is being marketed to the masses and has caused a large percentage of people to *care* about that form of news.   And I agree.   But I do not think that this translates to "news is entertainment" and that there is no other news out here.   Plenty of us ignore celebrity news and don't consider it news at all.   As I said, I agree with the basic premise, but not without putting parameters around it.   IMHO, of course.   :D
    Posted by yogafriend[/QUOTE]

    .....ahhh news really has gone from reporting the facts to twisting and turning a story and creating "grey" areas of truth(s).  There was a day, a long, long, long time ago when the word FACT was an acronym for Fast, Accurate, Concise and True, now when I look at a national story for example here in Mass and see how it was reported here (versus California via onlinenewspapers.com) you would be amazed how the same national story differs in terms of the facts(?) and information. Heck, just look at the Globe! The Kennedy clan gets God like treatment here! Chapaquidick, drunken romps with a nephew, DUI's and everything else that would make the "common" person front page news is swept aside if written about at all.

    The word FACT seems to have been replaced by the concept of report now, get the details later.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from reindeergirl. Show reindeergirl's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    Bib Schieffer is my favorite Washington reporter. I like shoe-leather journalism.

    I don't give a rat's a** about the Kardashians, but as YF mentioned, there are places I go to find arts, sciences, etc. Some here, some from the NYT, many from non-traditional sources.

    I'd know so much less about African if not for Nicholas Kristof; so much less about the economy of not for Paul Krugman; so much less about literature if not for the New York Review of Books. These are as much about news to me as local politics.

    I had to be dragged kicking and screaming to facebook, but once I got there, I found all kinds of news sources.

    Forget the morning shows, RT. The Today Show hasn't been the same since Dave Garroway. I was a child during Huntley-Brinkley, but recall that as reputable, as was David Susskind's talk show.

    Most of all, I remain an avid reader of print journalism.

    What I do not like is the redesign of The Boston Globe (I've written in to TPTB). The font is too thin and too gray; I don't like that crawler about stories saved - there's no function for permanently disabling it.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    In Response to Re: Thank you!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Thank you! : .....ahhh news really has gone from reporting the facts to twisting and turning a story and creating "grey" areas of truth(s).  There was a day, a long, long, long time ago when the word FACT was an acronym for Fast, Accurate, Concise and True, now when I look at a national story for example here in Mass and see how it was reported here (versus California via onlinenewspapers.com) you would be amazed how the same national story differs in terms of the facts(?) and information. Heck, just look at the Globe! The Kennedy clan gets God like treatment here! Chapaquidick, drunken romps with a nephew, DUI's and everything else that would make the "common" person front page news is swept aside if written about at all. The word FACT seems to have been replaced by the concept of report now, get the details later.
    Posted by RogerTaylor[/QUOTE]
    Roger, 
    Agreed.  I have no problem with what you're saying here.  My point had more to do with the idea that *all* news is not entertainment, celebrity news and there are some good news sources out here.  Call me naive, perhaps, but that's what I believe.  

    The news is slanted, filtered and spun -- agreed.  And people tend to go to the sources that are slanted in the diection they want to hear and believe.  The race to be "first" with a news story has cheapened the media news sources for sure.  As for details?  What are those?  :D
    Thanks.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Maldenlady. Show Maldenlady's posts

    Re: Thank you!

    Reindeergirl -- great post!  i remember listening to the recording of Edward R. Murrow's rooftop reports during the war, and "Harves of Shame".  Cronkhite.  They had a pway of drawing you in to the story, so that you wanted to know more.  You couldn't help but learn. 

    i like learning from a number of different resources, too.  i think I learned a lot as an American by reading reports about the war in Viet Nam from reputable overseas publications.  It was quite an awakening to see what our own government wasn't telling us.  Of course, ya had to be a little careful there, too,  because at least some of them may well have their own agenda, too.

    I think that news has become more commercialized, and some of these news sources have been bougt out/subsumed by others to the point where we don't really have as many diverse sources of information.  NYT bough out the Globe is a great example.

    Enter social media, and increasing reliance on citizen reporters, which I think is a really interesting development when you look at, say, the Jasmine Spring in the Middle East.  But these folks aren't necessarily professionally trained, so you can't be sure of the information there, either. 

    Again, Reinderrgirl, I think you've got the solution.  Go to a number of different sources -- even interntional ones.  The one thing that I ever agreed with Ronald Reagan about?  "Trust, but verify!"


     

Share