Here's a look at La Crosse Tribune coverage from flooding in 1965. The Mississippi River crested at 17.7 feet on April 21.

For a link to La Crosse Tribune newspapers since 1904, click here.

(4) comments

johnnybragatti

Nothing is yours zerokok , neither is it your gal"s : "D bag".
You own nothing.
Hope that helps.

Rick Czeczok

In looking at all the newspaper front pages in this article I was amassed at how this paper has changed. Go back to this type of reporting and you have a shot at coming back. I hope the papers heads take a look at these articles, they were non bias just factual news. Please look at them and learn from them. Just a suggestion, it's your paper and jobs, not mine.

DMoney

I thought the same thing. No hint of opinion or emotion or advocacy. Just straight up factual reporting of the news.

oldhomey

It was indeed a handsome newspaper then. And it was fat with advertising, big circulation. It had a much, much bigger staff of editors and reporters. In short, newspapers in 1965 were an entirely different business model than they are now. Through no fault of their own, newspapers have lost much of their advertising base to the internet, which is a better vehicle for most types of advertising that used to keep newspapers swimming in income -- especially want ads and auto advertising, new and used. At the same time, generational changes have meant the loss of young readers, who prefer to get "free" news off the internet. So circulation has crashed.

There simply are not enough people or even available space in newspapers to be as good as they were in 1965. Still, this is a very good local newspaper indeed, compared to other cities the size of La Crosse. And its news columns remain unbiased. Ricky and D read the paper online, and they think opinion columns are what comprise the news content of the paper. They are not. I think it is touch and go if newspapers in the next two decades will be printed on paper or not. It simply is not the same world as it was in 1965.

It was fascinating, by the way, to see the stories that were on the front page. Vietnam was becoming a big story, but mainstream media still was willing to accept the Pentagon version of how the war was going by and large. Eventually it questioned more closely what was going on. It was the beginning of a whole new era of press/government relationships. I see in one front page the account of Marines going in to DaNang, the real start of heavy U.S. combat involvement in Vietnam. I had a good friend who was one of those Marines that landed there at that time.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thanks for reading. Subscribe or log in to continue.