Video killed the radio star

Interesting KRON report on Internet news from 1981. The end is the funniest/saddest part.

Matt Artz


  1. Never has the saying, “be careful what you wish for,” been more true.

  2. I found the video amusing because it really shows how far we’ve come in terms of technology. I really liked the way they label Richard Halloran, the man who was reading the newspaper onhis computer. At 1:36 the title “Owns Home Computer” flashes on the screne.

  3. Matt, what is the future of delivering the news, both Local and National?
    What will become of Investigative reporting?
    Politicians are dancing in the street, who will report there indiscretions?
    Is this scary or what.

  4. Not to point fingers, but at a recent gathering of party leaders, one of the presenters said something like “we are seeing the collapse of the mainstream printed news media”… this drew a big cheer and loud applause from the crowd. His point was that the resulting vacuum would allow his party to promote its agenda without as much competition.

    I leave it to the reader to figure out which group was cheering, one hint is that I saw this clip on The Daily Show 😉

  5. It is good to know that the response that The Voice has received have been large enough for the Editor to characterize them as “phenomenal”. I’ve sent them my contribution; I encourage others to do the same.

    Who knew that our little Argus would grow up to be such a bully. For one newspaper to be so aggressive in their effort to remove another newspaper from the marketplace is shameful.

  6. I may be way off base, but I truly believe the pressure being exerted on TCV is not coming from Steve Waterhouse or any other Fremont-based Argus employee. This is the kind of BS typically scripted and handed down by corporate out-of-town suits and their hired legal beagles.

    I too have subscribed. Anybody remember the cartoon that’s been around for years showing a mouse standing on a rock, his hand held high in the air giving the hawk screaming down on him the one-finger salute? Same applies to MediaNews.

  7. If Doug is correct, isn’t there a rather startling conflict ? One one hand, Argus reporters claim to not possess enough resource to effectively question and report on Fremont politics but on the other hand Fremont is such an important revenue base that corporate “big wigs” take note of an encroaching “free” trade rag ????? sumthin stinks in Denmark. . .. .

    For me, something else has to be at play as these two issues seem totally at opposite ends . . . . at the very least, the localites “alerted” the big shots to the encroaching big bad TCV.

    Heaven forbid we’ve got a boatload of Argus subscribers, but we still dont get the time of day when it comes to local coverage.

  8. Doug, you’re right. As I hit the “submit” button, I realized that I was using “Argus” as shorthand for the larger entity that is actually pulling the strings; MediaNews.

    Anon, you have a point as well. Clearly it’s control of information that is at stake here, but the rights to a revenue stream like the legal notices enable an outlet to function and provide the information they choose to publish.

    Sumthin’ has stunk in local news for a long time. I’m not entirely sure why people subscribe to the Argus anymore. I check it out at work, because I’d never waste my money on it. Coverage of Fremont news is very sparse and the stories generally read like a release from the City Manager’s Office or the Chamber of Commerce. I shudder to think of all of the shady goings on in this town that we never know about because there is no revenue stream to support people who have the skills and the smarts to do investigative reporting.

  9. Irvington I couldn’t agree more. . . .

    I have been apalled at the lack of media confrontation of our city leadership – particularly with so many opportunities to do so.

    Artz says he doesnt have the resource or the time and there was an op-ed from one of the Argus East Bay guys that suggested that Media News reporters needed much more from the public eye to cull through the morass of data that’s out there now.

    Both arguments presented seem to claim that the free press media no longer possesses the resources necessary to keep an eye on the political process. That would be a fair claim if those same resources weren’t spending time researching, writing and publishing articles of far less pressing significance. The last thing the free press should throw in the towel on is the watchful eye on the political process. If that means you dont write the foosball article, so be it. But if you have to throw out something, why do you choose to throw out the most important aspect of free press reporting ??

    Seems to me that in its prioritization of what to report and what not to report, the media has become an enabling partner to the political factions they ignore.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *