• Right Place Photo Caption Contest Hall of Glory Top 25

    meister.jpeg About Me
    BlogmeisterUSA's Guidelines for Commenting
    My Blog at Newsbusters
    My Writings at Family Security Matters
    My Writings at The American Thinker
    I Also Blog at Lifelike Pundits
    National Summary Interviews Me
    Read "The Americans" by Gordon Sinclair
    PELOSI_DEMOCRAT_TREASON-1.jpg More About the Fighting 101st Keyboardists
    fighting101s.jpg


May 26, 2005

Major Newspaper Circs Continue to Nosedive

According to Newsmax, circulation numbers for major newspapers continue to plunge. Some of the numbers:
  • Chicago Tribune: down 6.6 percent daily, 4.6 percent Sunday
  • Los Angeles Times: down 6.4 percent daily, 7.9 percent Sunday
  • San Francisco Chronicle: down 6 percent daily, 7.7 percent Sunday
A few papers posted minor gains, like USA Today's .5% rise in its daily numbers.

Still, the news doesn't look good for many papers. There are a few reasons why this might be:

  • Fewer people give a hoot about the news on a daily basis.
  • More people are becoming skeptical of MSM news coverage.
  • More people are getting their news from sources such as Fox, CNN, and the Internet.
This last point may have more to do with it than anything. Most major newspapers have online editions, and many of those are free. The New York Times recently announced that it will begin charging for some online information, including its editorials and archived material.

Question: Why would anyone want to subscribe to a paper when most of its information can be found online for free?

The Newsmax article also mentions that the New York Times is planning on job cuts, representing approximately 1.5% of its workforce. This is a business decision made to keep the paper, which is part of a corporation, viable. It makes business sense, no matter how difficult a decision it may be.

What? The Times is part of corporation, concerned about the bottom line? Who knew? Will Paul Krugman add his paper to the list of greedy corporate entities, more concerned with profit than its employees? After all, it's doubtful the higher-ups are taking a paycut in order to keep jobs.

And will the NYT expect the government to take care of those it lays off, as it did in this editorial on December 9, 2003?

Perhaps the Times should step down from its homemade pedestal.

Show Comments »

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










    ENDORSEMENTS "Your stupid requirements for commenting, whatever they are, mean I'll not read you again." ~ "Duke Martin", Oraculations
    "One of the worst sites I've read." ~ Frank A. Niedospial