45 thoughts on “Buy A Paper Or The Terrorists Win

        1. Continuity Jay-Z

          The thing about the papers they don’t even get the facts right despite having time on their side!

    1. Nigel

      Watch it today, with panic, rumours, insinuations, mistakes, clarifications, half-baked speculation and opinions, meaningless random vox pops, tweets off the internet, endless scrolling, exploding, whirling graphics and ad breaks. Read it tomorrow, definitely without most, hopefully without all, of those harmonious elements.

      1. Tom

        The thing is though, very few people are actually going to put their iphone down and say “I’ll just read about this momentous event tomorrow once the good people of Independent News and Media have determined what I need to know about it.”

        For huge events like 9/11, newspapers are inevitably late to the party – the ad evokes the medium’s fundamental weakness.

        1. Nigel

          Well, people might value excited, spectacular, here-and-now, immediate but shallow, confused and limited coverage over the next day’s sober, comprehensive, factual details, analysis, eyewitness accounts etc, but we’re the poorer for it. I find the ‘late to the party’ attitude to profoundly miss the point. Unfortunately, with real journalism in print being cut ever closer to the bone, (and increasingly rare on television) the next day coverage is diminishing in quality all the time, too.

          1. Stuart F

            How are we “poorer” for getting our news the day it happens and not the next day.

            News is news.

            News pumped through Rogets Thesaurus is still news.

          2. Tom

            Why do you think that you can’t find “sober, comprehensive, factual details, analysis, eyewitness accounts etc” online? You get that within hours rather than tomorrow, as well as the real time twitter chatter (whose value you can’t discount out of hand). “Real journalism” isn’t defined by its medium.

            I think you’ll find that as time goes on and more and more people discover that you can get today’s news as well as yesterday’s online, more and more print readers will take to missing the same point as I apparently do. You can’t argue with the marketplace. I sympathise with the plight of those who have built careers on the print paradigm, but you’re shouting “Get back, ya bastard!” at the tide.

          3. Nigel

            Stuart F.: I don’t necessarily think we’re poorer one way or the other. The immediacy of live coverage is great. The sober reflection and in-depth analysis of the next day or the next week may be less exciting, but perhaps crucial to understanding what’s going on. Culturally, we’re leaning a bit too much to the former, it seems to me.

        2. Nigel

          Tom: well, first of al because that much reading online strains my flippin’ eyes is why. Secondly, while if you can find them, the internet is a treasure trove of professionals willing to provide competent, albeit amateur, analysis and insights on current events as they relate to their areas of expertise, which can be invaluable. However there’s precious little real journalism and a whole lot of the equivalent of the opinion pages based on reportage from screen or print. I’m not for a second suggesting there’s anything remotely wrong with accessing your news via the internet, but most of that news will be sourced from screen or print sources. That’s where journalism mostly starts, and that’s where it’s being whittled down. There may be a viable model for proper in-depth professional journalism to be practised almost exclusively online, but I ain’t seen it yet.
          I’m not arguing with the marketplace, I’m pointing out the detrimental effects. ‘The point’ is that live coverage of the news will, generally, give you the surface, the actual events. Not to say this isn’t crucially important, even vital, but to get a deeper understanding of those events you need in-depth journalism, which takes time and effort and money and experience to achieve. You can do that on television, in print or online. At the moment, its increasingly derelict home is in print. But you can usually catch it online. Without paying.

      2. Continuity Jay-Z

        Nigel, the papers are taking thier info from the same root sources you and I do! Irish journalists in particuylar are among the worst offenders! look at the blige pumps the Sindo employ. Fact-lite ramblings of an over-paid cossetted class who cheerlead for the highest bidder.

      1. Spaghetti Hoop

        Food safety authorities stopped the practice after high traces of bull excrement were found in the chips.

  1. Mick

    They probably think that’s awful clever.

    But either Time or the Economist did a far better and more tasteful ad on the same theme a few years ago.

    A smarter ad would have been a picture of New Yorkers at street level going about their business (never looking upwards) followed by the same street with everyone looking up in shock.

    1. Karl

      loooool. Nonsense. The line is ‘the world can change in one day’ – now, unless New Yorkers were to remain permanently fixated on the skyline your idea doesn’t work.

    2. dave

      That’s a very nice idea but within the format of this campaign (as it appears), probably impossible to execute.

  2. munkifisht

    Don’t really see much of a difference in crassness between this and the celebration of the Titanic disaster.

    1. dave

      If you find that ad crass, and if you really think anyone has ever “celebrated” the Titanic disaster, you’re probably very, very easily offended.

  3. Mike Baldwin

    Unless I can read about it the day before, I’m out. They really need to up their game. An Irishman’s Diary is about the only thing worth reading in the Times these days, unless it’s yer man’s diary of course, then I’m out again.

Comments are closed.