A Boy Named Sue

The LA Times is quoting Carl Prine and oh does that make sense.

Here's Pine's take on the newspaper business back in October.

"Ahhh, but if they weren't so damned profitable! Publicly traded media companies regularly report double-digit profit margins. Numbers are numbers, and certainly readership and viewership have fragmented. But the NY Times still makes a huge amount of money and controls a good portion of the public debate, whether bloggers like it or not."

I've said it before. The LA Times is famous for having the greatest percentage drop in circulation in the States last year. The Tribune Company owns the LA Times amongst other things, most recently losing out in the WB/UPN realignment. Their share price has dropped over 40% in the last two years. The NYTimes share price has dropped 44% over the last two years.

Here's Prine's take on Michael Yon's writing:

"I have NO envy for Yon. Had I demonstrated his skills, I'd be fired as an incompetent."

I got up Carl's nose in October in the comments section of a post at Chapomatic. He showed his true colours - patronising, elitist and misogynist.

Here are some edited highlights:

Me: "There are myriad reports on the unprofitability of print media. "

Carl: "Too bad they don't seem to show up in public disclosure forms from the SEC. Most major print companies - and I assume mine would fall into this line - report double digit profit margins. For most industries, this would be fat times indeed! "

..."The dominant media companies currently are highly profitable. If you do not understand that, I don't know what to tell you. Obviously the SEC and I won't change your pretty little mind, so we won't try. Much of this information is publicly available. I will not speak for Fleet Street balance sheets.

Me: "Authentic and credible sources of information are what's desired. Old media no longer offers this. Blogs currently supply it."

Carl: "I must be missing those blogs! Most blogs I've seen cherrypick the stories they like from the "old media" then bloviate something about how the "MSM" aren't reporting it (which it tautologically impossible, but there you have it). Or they find a story from one media outlet and trash it. Or they take some news from one source and extrapolate from it the seeds of their own op-ed on the subject. "

Here's my favourite bit:

Carl: "Carol, your purposeful misreading of my words (perhaps they are too difficult to sound out) to construct strawman arguments is inane. But enjoy your precious little Oprah moment of catharsis. You got to talk big to a reporter. Good job. Now go brag to all the other ladies in the bridge club."

Dear Ladies of the Bridge Club, remember how I bragged about this! And a little later:

"In a certain sense, the anonymous courage of souls like "Carol" and "Subsunk" is hilarious. In another, their bile is deeply offensive.

"The only reason why I wrote “he” or “she” is because “Carol,” in the American parlance, can be either a male or female name (although it tends to show up among women)."

"It’s neither intended to be emasculating or misogynistic. The reality, of course, is that a great many people know me. I’m not sure if anyone knows you. But at least you got to talk big to a reporter, and that’s precious."

The whole thing was very enlightening.