The Guardian flags this line, from Thursday: "In further proof of why old people should not be allowed to run media conglomerates, media magnate Rupert Murdoch has announced that News Corporation's newspaper websites will begin charging for access within a year". The tag? "Naked ageism." Perhaps, but is it necessarily incorrect? Also, now we're picturing Rupert Murdoch naked, which is more cause for an apology than the line itself, we think.
What the hell else can newspapers do? As annoying as the NYT can be, and it can be very annoying, they do spend some $200 million a year gathering news, which about a million other "sources" free-ride on. Without that, we'd all be deeper into drooling idiocy than we already are.
They really do need to pull off the Web and go to some type of Kindle DX model that makes them money. The fact that Gawker Media, HuffPo and their ilk can ride the NYT's investment to fame and fortune, all the while claiming they report original news (granted, it's fracking hilarious to think that Gawker's original reporting consists of leaving unanswered messages on sources' voicemail) is a little more than I can stomach at this hour in the morning.
Oh, sure, everyone complains about the olds running the big, nasty conglomerates, but think of the alternative. Do you really want to give Sumner Redstone more free time to suck the blood of the young, enslaving us for all eternity as he, undead, controls our very minds?
Okay, so, no change really.
So when the Guardian flags a passage as naked ageism, is that an admonishment or a celebration? Because to me, it's starts to smack of ism-ism.
They should also flag it for Young Whippersnapperism - like some Guardian hack knows more about the media biz than Rupert Murdoch. The guy is evil, but he's pretty good at his job.