Single Mothers Killed the Newspaper

Welfare queens, too:

Even in a supposedly prosperous and well-educated state like Connecticut, how strong can demand for those things be now that half the children are being raised without two parents at home and thus acquiring developmental handicaps; 70 percent of community college and state university freshmen have not mastered what used to be considered basic high school skills; poverty has risen steadily even as government appropriations in the name of remediating poverty have risen steadily; and democracy has sunk so much that half the eligible population isn’t voting in presidential elections, 65 percent isn’t voting in state elections, and 85 percent isn’t voting in municipal elections?

This social disintegration and decline in civic engagement coincide with the decline of traditional journalism just as much as the rise of the Internet does.

Indeed, newspapers still can sell themselves to traditional households — two-parent families involved with their children, schools, churches, sports, civic groups, and such. But newspapers cannot sell themselves to households headed by single women who have several children by different fathers, survive on welfare stipends, can hardly speak or read English, move every few months to cheat their landlords, barely know what town they’re living in, and couldn’t afford a newspaper subscription even if they could read. And such households constitute a rising share of the population.

A measured response:

It takes a special kind of misogyny to believe that the decline in print newspaper subscribers is due to women who get pregnant out of wedlock. Maybe the decline really started with women getting the right to vote, or working outside of the home?

It takes a spectacular sense of denial to miss the trend away from print media across all socio-economic categories.

And it takes a stunted and isolated concept of journalism and business opportunities to believe that single mothers, minorities, low-income people and non-traditional families don’t care about the plane crash down the street, their tax bill or their children’s health or education, or that they don’t buy the products your advertisers are selling.

My response: WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? I’ve read some half-educated shit in my time about what really killed newspapers, and the top half of this article, detailing the rise of Those Kids With Their Phones isn’t much more intelligent than this, but this is where it goes careening off the rails. Off the rails, on fire, directly into a barn full of chickens.

I mean it, what the fucking fuck? You have to have a dude in the house for anyone to read a paper? You need a “traditional family” in order to be basically literate and care when the local park is gonna be closed and if your kids’ school has a new principal or whatever? You have to go to church to, you know, read something interesting to you? I don’t see how a Lions Club membership makes you automatically a better newspaper reader.

A.

6 thoughts on “Single Mothers Killed the Newspaper

  1. gratuitous says:

    What the fucking fuck, indeed. The writer of this twaddle ticks off problem after problem, then goes right to the people victimized most by those problems as the source. Yes, schools aren’t preparing students for college very well anymore. But how many times have school funding levies been turned down? Schools have been running on fumes, held together by baling wire and chewing gum for 30 years, and kept operating only through the herculean efforts and dedication of underpaid, underappreciated teachers. Meanwhile, overrich fatcats have amassed greater and greater personal fortunes, whining all the while about their onerous tax burdens and how nobody loves them.
    And schools are just one example. Want to raise a family? The American worker has been putting in longer hours with steadily rising productivity for 30 years, but wages have been parked, immovable, for that entire time. Where’s all that Wealth that Labor is producing going? Why isn’t it being spent on our nation and its citizens? Nope, we’re back to selfish millionaires sitting on their pile of money, bitching (or paying some stooge like Chris Powell to bitch) about “civic engagement” when they can’t be bothered to fund the system that’s made them so rich. Sure, kids can die from hunger in the streets, and that’s too bad, but does that really compare with forcing Daddy Gotbucks to pay an extra three cents on the dollar in taxes? Now that’s something to be outraged about!
    Fuckers. Every last one of them.

  2. Diana says:

    why do I get the feeling this is the sentiment that elected the current House of Representatives to shut the government in order to deny health care to poor people?

  3. iceblue says:

    Maybe he’s being let go and he’s gotta blame SOMEONE.
    For awhile now, I’ve been saying Fuck these fucking fuckers. It fits for almost everything…try it.

  4. histrogeek says:

    Holy Wotan, is there anything those treacherous single moms can’t do? I always assumed that harried look with so many was due to the near impossibility of trying to raise children with only one parent. (Two is fucking difficult enough.) Now I see that it’s actually because they spend so much time meeting to plan the annihilation of all that is good and decent in the world.

  5. Brooklyn Girl says:

    Wow, that’s some mighty twisted “logic” (and I use the term loosely). Constantly go after the media and then when people stop consuming those media, blame everyone except the people who are just like you. Defund the schools while calling education “liberal propaganda” (or something similar) and then complain when people aren’t educated?
    So here are my questions: if the media/newspapers were truly liberal, wouldn’t the very constituencies that the first author is railing about be reading them? If you want people to know how to think, shouldn’t you be in favor of funding the schools?

  6. pansypoo says:

    2 choices, raise wages or wage support from government Nanny.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: