...nobody would pay for it if it was on sale.
Your articles are all bleeding-heart extreme leftist diatribes on how bad corporations are, and how great the North end is. This isn't journalism, its biased opinion-piece tripe.
For instance, your Adam-suicide-bridge article presents the story in one way: the bridge needs a fence, and the HRM is so heartless for not putting a fence up. What it fails to mention is that the old, rickety bridge cannot bear the additional weight that a suicide-prevention fence would add. Of course, this is mentioned nowhere in the article.
And then there was that piece on the squeegee kids. God-awful sanctimonious one-sided tripe. Leslie Lowe should be fired: she's a poor journalist.
But I can see why your rag is like this, if I put my marketing hat on:
The Coast acts as a way to market bars, concerts etc. to the bohemian poor-artist, or poor-student demographic. They do not have enough money to actually buy a newspaper, and they usually also do not have TV, so the only means for advertising to them is through the Coast.
Seeing as how the majority of this demographic shares extreme leftist, anti-capitalist, pro-socialist views, the Coast prints articles that pander to these views, as to keep their demographic reading. If the demographic keeps reading, the advertisers keep paying the salaries of the Coast's operators.
I mean, look at the picture the Coast uses to display free advertising space to potential buyers: its an androgynous person in tight jeans, converse sneakers, and a hoodie, with a really bad haircut and dumb smirk, standing in what looks to be a very low-class neighborhood: exactly the demographic that reads the Coast, and that advertisers pander to..
So, would the sanctimonious Coast get off its high-horse, realize that even your hippy paper is not immune to capitalism, and start printing more neutral articles?
|The Coast is poor journalism.|