IU star
- Thread starter boilerpete1
- Start date
Sure. That is why I don't subscribe.
I mean, I'm not some big fan of the journalism of the Indianapolis Star, but there are demographics that they're aware of that a majority of their subscribers are IU fans. Of course they're going to cover it heavily.
That being said, it's not like the headline in the paper today was IU. It was two massive pictures of Butler and Purdue.
It used to bother me -- about 20 years ago. Then I stopped giving them my money. There are much better source of Purdue information than the paper that should be the best source.
Most of the IU subscribers order the newspaper on tape option of course.
Which is exactly why they aren't journalists, objectively covering news. They write whatever they think the majority want to hear -- to sell papers. They're not journalists, they're whores for IU, trying to take business away from the IU Rivals site.
the newspaper and the local news channels are all about iu. when iu is in the tournament they send everyone and tell us everything that is going on in the city they are playing in. when purdue is in, they are an after thought on the news. oh, and by the way , purdue won last night, now on to some important fluff news
Lets be honest, half of this board is MORE interested in bashing Crean and IU vs. talking about the Boilers and this tournament. Look at the longest threads and most posts in the last week or so. Way to much time is wasted on IU? I'll never figure it out. Who cares about them. We should only be focusing on Purdue and or upcoming opponents...
I hear this argument all the time. But it is flawed. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? In the case of the IU Star, did the demographics evolve, over time, to IU supporters since the content was so heavily skewed in that direction?
The same with Jake Query radio show. He acted befuddled a few weeks ago when he dedicated a segment to Purdue and only got 5 callers. My thought was, "duh". You talk about IU so much that your demographics are skewed toward IU. In one given, unadvertised, segment, why would you think the demographics of listeners would suddenly change?
Side note: I cancelled the IU Star several years ago. I found better Purdue coverage on-line and that was my largest interest. The IU Star made their own bed with demographics - for better or worse - I am not a subscriber to be the judge on that..
So I ask again, which came first? The chicken or the egg?
IU has like 4 times as many alumni in the Indianapolis area. It's not made up.
Definitely truth in what you are saying. Many of the local media have ties to IU because of its schools of journalism and communications - for example Jake Query and his radio partner Derick Schultz are both IU grads.
It is impossible for those guys or
anyone to be impartial with those connections. The Indianapolis media market is very heavily full of IU grads not just the on air talent or sports reporters but also their management.
It really is ridiculous how slanted the Indy media is - if things were reversed right now (IU in sweet 16 and Purdue firing coach) you would see and hear almost nothing about the purdue search.
Plus it's the media who continue to try to hype IU as this pre-destined "blue blood" or "sleeping giant" because they are fans first and not real journalists. As fans they not only root for their team but also root against their teams rival.
Control of the media is a powerful tool - just look at oppressive forms of government. Fortunately the internet now affords people an opportunity to get a different perspective but the reality is that the local Indy media has big influence on the Indy sports fan population.
This is exactly right. I remember when the IU and Purdue coverage was equal. Many loyal Star/News readers left because the paper turned its back on them. And the way the editors and writers responded showed a clear lack of journalistic integrity. Expecting those readers to come back when they write an occasional story about Purdue is as stupid as the decision to focus on IU in the first place.
That's the excuse the Star staff gives. But the Star has statewide circulation. It isn't now and never has been just an Indianapolis newspaper.
I'm sorry but if you think a for-profit company is not basing things on demographics, I don't know what to say.
This issue can be summed up in a phrase I heard from a wisened grad of some midwestern university....
He said, "you will find IU grads all over the state of Indiana.... you will find Notre Dame all over the United States.... you will find Purdue grads all over the world."
He said, "you will find IU grads all over the state of Indiana.... you will find Notre Dame all over the United States.... you will find Purdue grads all over the world."
Didn't say that.
Many examples have been given over the years of the Star not just slighting Purdue, but publishing snarky or incorrect headlines. If you think part of their appeal to their base should be to take jabs at the rival in-state school, then you have a different idea about what a news organization should be than I do.
Gannett's qual/quant, not some kind of confirmation bias, likely determines their content - just like most outlets (and any company looking to make any money that can afford the research).
But as another posted above, while covering all things IU panders to the majority demo (i.e. business) but do they need to make slights or take not so veiled pot shots at Purdue? I say they do it for two reasons 1) they are largely IU grads so they enjoy doing so and 2) that is still pandering to their majority audience and hence they justify it as a business decision.
Examples? I haven't seen much of that, unless you are talking about opinion pieces?
I've seen some examples, but it's one of those things where you can cherry pick headlines over time about anything and come up with a trend or slant. ESPN's headline for our ISU game was something like "Purdue avoids epic collapse" - that's an example of a headline people have complained about the Indy Star using - basically a backhanded compliment type of headline. But ESPN did it, does that mean they're against Purdue?
If you sat there and analyzed every headline for a year and then came back and said well only Purdue gets slanted ones - then fine. Picking one out here and there and saying it's a trend that doesn't apply to anyone else - is jumping a bit to conclusions. And throwing out conspiracies like IU has so much support because the Indy Star has covered them more over the years - I mean, come on.
This is your 2nd post. You obviously haven't been around very long, so it's hard to take your claim that you "haven't seen much" seriously. It has been discussed on this board for several years.
Tenure on an internet forum =/= ability to analyze media. I figured you might have some specific examples. If you don't have any evidence beyond echo chamber complaining, so be it, but that's all you have to say, rather than resorting to logical fallacies to make your point.
Aside from that, if you continue to ostracize people that have a different opinion, you're limiting your community's growth and strengthening the echo in your chamber.
I like what Ibodel posted, and agree wholeheartedly. He has 7,900 posts and nearly 1,500 likes over 10+ years on this board. That good enough?
I read the Star for about 40 years -- until about 10 years ago. As I said in another post, I watched it go from being fairly even, but certainly fair coverage, to what it is today. Since I don't read it regularly, it isn't likely that I would have any examples to give you. But many, many examples have been posted on this site over the past 10 years. That's why I referred to your time on this board. You can't say something didn't happen just because you weren't around to see it. Surely you understand that.
Do you read the Star? Do you work for the Star? Or are you living in your own personal "echo chamber", challenging other people's experience out of ignorance or just for fun?
So you have been off the Star's sub list for 10 years, but you are willing to blast their journalistic integrity on the internet regardless. Glad we have established the standards for critique.
Time. On. An. Internet. Forum. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Media. Consumption.
Also, you can't say something DID happen and then admit to being willfully ignorant of the subject of your criticism (not having paid attention for a decade). That's pretty damning. I live out of state, but seem to consumer more Star content than you do. Again, none of that has anything to do with my involvement in this particular community.
I work in a field in which media analysis is an extremely critical skill to daily (and longer term) success. I have never interacted with the Star (I live out of state but consume their content online to maintain awareness of what's going on at home) or their staff directly. I haven't even commented on an article on their site.
I do have fun challenging people who make grotesque mischaracterizations without supporting evidence and then admit their bias and willful ignorance. It's important to our civil discourse that people have opinions rooted in facts (complete with context).
If you want to talk about the Star's broader coverage of IU, great (though apparently the OP's concern was fairly quickly discounted by another poster indicating the feature of Butler/Purdue on the front page). They are likely to do that as a result of the demographics of their readership, as has been pointed out here before.
But, as has also been pointed out, it's a hard argument to make that they are "anti-Purdue" without at least presenting some kind of evidence beyond cherry-picking headlines or opinion pieces (which cannot be used in a discussion of "journalistic integrity" particularly often). Reverting to "I don't know because I don't read it" and/or "It's all been posted here before" isn't particularly compelling, especially when you consider the claim made in the original post of this thread and its relation to reality.
Purdue fans don't need a good reason to give the Indy Star another chance. It's up to the Indy Star to convince us that they are worth it if they want our business. Whether you think people have a valid reason to dislike them or not, it's not our problem. It's theirs.
You read their material, but you see no bias. And you "work in a field in which media analysis is an extremely critical skill to daily (and longer term) success." With those admissions, you have told us that any success will be short-lived because you obviously suck at your job.
