When journalists wring their hands about their precarious fate, I can't help but take pleasure in observing that their present circumstances was brought about by their own sloth. Take Stu Bykofsky.
The fact that this guy is considered one of Philadelphia's leading columnists speaks to just in what low esteem his employers hold their readers. Consider his most recent work - "Bike lanes are coming. Can you guess where?"
Cater to the lowest common denominator?
Check.
Construct an "argument" based upon logical fallacies?
Check.
Stu obviously has a problem with cyclists. Why? My guess is that he reasons that they are a good target. As he acknowledges, cyclists make "1.2 percent of the population." In other words, 1.2% of his readership. So, picking a fight with cyclists means he doesn't piss off too many readers. Not to mention, he's probably assuming that that 1.2% is a fairly liberal bunch who aren't among his readers to begin with.
Stu has a problem with cyclists because he doesn't want to share the road or give up precious parking spaces to accommodate their chosen means of transportation. And he feels especially galled by cyclists because he feels like they are a bunch of scofflaws.
Admittedly, Stu is right. Cyclists do tend to run red lights and ride on the occasional sidewalk. Yet rather than address why cyclists ignore certain traffic laws (IMHO, the real story), he engages is an ad hominem attacks - cyclists shouldn't be accommodated because they are bad people.
Unfortunately, Stu's mindset is the problem. By painting cyclists as bad people, he justifies the prevailing mindset among many drivers that cyclists are somehow trespassers, that we possess less of a right to the road than drivers do. And that mindset too often justifies many drivers doing things like cutting cyclists off, veering into bike lanes, and generally making themselves and their several tons of steel a menace to cyclists.
Cyclists run red lights because it is safer. It allows us to get out in front of traffic, away from the idiots who read Stu's drivel and feel justified in using their car as a weapon.
If Stu's employers respected his readers, they'd employ writers who would ask why cyclists do what they do. They'd question whether it makes sense to treat SUV drivers and cyclists as equivalents and whether this false equivalence implies that laws intended to govern the conduct of drivers should not be applied to govern the conduct of cyclists. Perhaps instead of reflexively demanding the enforcement of existing laws, they'd question whether widespread disobedience suggests we ought to write new ones? Perhaps they'd discuss issues like peak oil and why sooner or later those folks who commute in their empty SUVs will need to find a new means of transportation.
But that would be hard. And it would take more work than the hour or so the likes of Stu put into their work.
But I'd argue, in the long term, Stu's employers would be better served. Right now, the Daily News and Inquirer do no more than present the written equivalent of the drunken ramblings heard of any night at any random watering hole. Why should anyone pay good money for that? Especially when you can just head over to your local bar, buy yourself a beer with the money you would have spent on a week's worth of Stu's drivel and allow yourself to be regaled by similar nonsense for free?
So, yeah. When you choose to give a platform to the angry drunk, it makes sense that sooner or later your readers are going to stop paying any attention to you. After all, that's what any sensible bar patron does once the likes of Stu have had one too many.