More Bad News For Newspapers

New circulation numbers are out and it added up to more bad news for the newspaper industry (hat tip: E&P). Among the top 20 newspapers, circulation declined at 18 of them, many dramatically. The San Francisco Chronicle saw its circulation drop off a whopping 16.58%, the Boston Globe saw a decline of 8.25% and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was down 8.73%. Only two papers, the New York Times and Newark Star Ledger saw positive numbers – barely. The Times was up just .46% and the Star Ledger .01%. The circulation report compares activity of the past six months to the same time period of a year ago.

[nakedemperor]

"Interesting stuff. Is this because of newspapers readers reading online versions or alternative media sources?" Obviously both and for reasons that the major print and network Media cannot and will not hear: we've had enough of yellow journalism's version of 'wag the dog' reality. you can no longer wag a dog that you've beat merciously for over 40 years since THAT generation 'rocked the world'. we've HAD IT. We have somewhere to go for BOTH sides of the stories now.. and like fiendish Drug Lords, the Media cannot stand that we are no longer dependent on them. Rather (double meaning intended) they will frantically toss their wares at our retreating feet rather than look within. Sic Semper Tyrannis.. Joseph the devil is playing a game, and you're it

[wintermute1-2009]

Antiquated, inefficient technology. So is one-size-fits-all TV news, which is broadcast at whatever time slot best fits your overall corporate profit picture and which moreover steals typically 8 unregulated minutes out of every half-hour of my life trying to sell me stuff I am not interested in. The numbers are going to force some serious changes here. One thing that needs to go is the attitude of journalists that they are some kind of superior priesthood, privileged to ride into our lives with their "best and the brightest" presentations while allowing us a tiny amount of feedback but clamming up, closing ranks, or getting huffy when truly challenged. I'm way more likely to look at ads on a website, targeted to my lifestyle and needs. I'm much more likely to be loyal to journalists who engage their readers, listeners, or viewers in dialogue. Why has Rush made such an impact? HE TAKES CALLS and often appreciates caller contributions on-air. This appealing aspect of talk-show radio can be added to TV and web journalism to a greater degree. Look, I don't have time in my life to be a reporter on everything I'm interested in. I delegate that to you. I have a profession of my own. Nor do you have time to respond personally to every email from the great unwashed. But you can get in a truly blog-like web forum and deal with at least one consumer a day on one aspect of each story. That makes everyone feel their responses are being read too.

[ikez78]

Interesting stuff. Is this because of newspapers readers reading online versions or alternative media sources?