Newspapers’ Circulations Continue to Decline

Well, there is one point that might be taken from the article. . . The Wall Street Journal – a conservative rag – is the only one that seems to be doing well. And on the boob tube, the Fox News Channel – again conservative – seems to be the market leader. Perhaps it’s an indication that conservative news outlets are seen as more accurate and reliable. . . or maybe that those with a conservative point of view simply spend more time becoming acquainted with current events. Be that as it may, I think I agree with goxewu that a decline in newspaper circulation is not a precursor to the demise of western civilization. The problem with printed newspapers is that they are static. You’re stuck with whatever the news was at that instant. I lived in Japan and was an avid reader of the Pacific Stars and Stripes. In those days (some decades ago), the PSS was printed in Japan for overnight distribution throughout the Pacific theater. In Korea or Okinawa or the Philippines, it was a morning paper with that day’s date. In Japan, however, it on the newsstand the previous afternoon. I used to joke that the Pacific Stars and Stripes was “Yesterday’s news, in tomorrow’s newspaper, today.” But it was all we had. The news on AFRTS was. . .well. . .even older. CNN had only started a few years before and was not yet available. Good or bad, I was a voracious reader of the PSS.I no longer need it. I no longer need any newspaper unless it’s on-line. Well. . . except that I use the Boston Globe for the only purpose for which it is suited – lining my bird cages. I am still a voracious consumer of news, but I get it from FNC, FBC, CNBC, and on-line versions of the WSJ, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Boston Herald, and others. I know that when I check for headlines, they are up to the minute. There may be a “Dewey Defeats Truman” headline at some point, but it will be instantly corrected. Yeah. . . sometimes I miss sitting in a restaurant with my newspaper, a Lucky Strike, and a cup o’ joe, but then I remember that I hate getting black newsprint all over my fingers and haven’t been able to stand the smell of cigarette smoke for years. I will, however, take a cup of strong coffee with that computer screen.

Of course it is! Just as the reporting done on FNC is pretty much objective. But you’ll never convince a liberal of that. . .and it’s fun to tweak them and watch the fireworks!

No gox, there’s only one of me – heavens be praised. But somewhere along the line many years ago, I tried to use LiveFreeorDie as a screen name in AOL. Taken. Same with LiveFreeorDie1. But 2? Ah. . . 2 was available and it’s been with me ever since. Most folks just call me Free for short.As for the NY Post, no complaining from me. They “support” both the NY Skankees and the NY Muts (Not to mention the Giants and the Jets). Not enough bad things can happen to any outfit from NY. And btw, you are quite aware, I’m sure, that you can’t compare the circulation of daily newspapers from two different cities. Too many variables. And besides, I was supporting your point of view. . .or. . .at least. . .some of it. You should be nice to Poor ol’ Free on this one occasion.

I’m nice–as in no direct invective ad hominem and generally civil language–to everyone. But Free’s dittohead, Beckist opinions on the likes of health care, expressed almost exactly as a NY Post editorial would express them, get him no more than the common courtesies from goxewu. Who is not, by the way, “gox,” since “goxewu” is nothing but those little wavy letters in the verification box I had to click when I registered with “Brainstorm.”But back to newspapers: Of course, dailies from different cities are not exactly comparable, but neither is a trade paper (WSJ) and a metropolitan daily. That’s why the Journal’s anomalous rise in circulation says nothing about its editorial conservatism benefitting that circulation–which is why I brought up the Post. (Free is not big on subtlety.)And bphil is spot on “most people who read news online do not read it at the sites of the newspapers.” OK, it might not be “most” but instead “a great many,” which still fairly well obviates Prof. Bauerlein’s point about the declining amounts of time visitors spend at newspaper websites. In fact, Prof. Bauerlein’s whole wearisome “The Dumbest Generation” hobbyhorse (i.e., the digital universe is making people dumber and one example being people who don’t get their news from ink-on-paper) begins to collapse under observations such as bphil’s. Prof. Bauerlein would likely claim he’s implying no such conclusions from the decline in newspaper circulation, but I would ask: What, then, is the point of the OP–merely to warn people about investing their money in the newspaper business? Or is it a pseudo-neutral observation-in-passing, along the lines of people are buying fewer blue automobiles, and more silver ones, these days? Hardly.Note to livefreeordie2: A few years back, the state of Wisconsin wished to change its license-plate motto from “America’s Dairlyland” to something a little catchier. It held a contest (the final results of which I know not), and one entry, parodying New Hampshire, suggested “Eat Cheese or Die.” If he acts quickly, liverfreeordie2 could probably seize that as a screen name without having to suffer the ignominy of a suffixed number.

Most newspapers just re-publish as news the press releases of the career dirtbag politicians and government agencies and also “spin” or “churn” other stories.We need a heavy tax on newsprint to save the planet–that should put them completely out of business–ta, ta.

In defense of Bauerlein, the key problem with online vs. print reading is that the online reading is not properly monetized as yet, and online ads tend to be cheaper, so as the economists might say, online readers are in a sense free riders who are not paying for the infrastructure that produces the news stories. Now of course, this can and will happen eventually, and is the subject of much debate, but in the meantime, while this is being worked out many papers are indeed going out of business. For those of you who like bigger implications, for people who worry about the role of say, a free press in ensuring a free society, I have to agree that there is a concern here. Can a loose network of unpaid/marginal bloggers really afford to produce the same type of in-depth detailed reporting as a team of paid, full time reporters? Will they want to produce serious “News” in an environment of “Awesum Newz Bytes”? And while I am less concerned about the death of second rate and regional papers, I do worry about continued high quality reporting coming from somewhere. One only has to look at the radio market to see what happens to quality levels when mainstream, popular demand carries the day — that’s tisk on you, NPR, for your weak content. (Hence, I listen to news on the BBC, and who knows, maybe one day I’ll be reading the Indian Times online, if the NY Times goes down the toilet… Honestly though, the LA Times would be better off merging with Variety or going to the daily tabloid format.)

1. At least with websites, the publisher can know how long the visitor stays and whether he or she reads only the sports section and how long is the visit to that particular department. With ink-on-paper, it could be the whole paper read beginning to end, or just the headlines and then right to bottom of livefreeordie2′s birdcage, or anything in between.2. The trouble with “in-depth detailed reporting” from an influential publication such as The New York Times is that it includes the likes of Judith Miller. At least with a hundred thousand “Awesum News Bytes” you don’t get William Randolph Hearst’s command to his artist in the field, Frederic Remington: “You supply the pictures, I’ll supply the war.”3. The long view, the wide view reveals that we’re simply fetishizing a certain physical format (ink on newsprint) and equating it with the news itself. While ink-on-paper books may hold out longer (they’re written for at least the medium haul and don’t suffer so much from being static), the idea of the latest news, or even timely analysis, being tethered to an 18th century medium is quaint, if not actually laughable. Some things are at a certain point simply over with. The sports columnist Michael Wilbon says flatly that boxing (in the face of “mixed martial arts”) and horse racing (cruel, expensive, marginal and no longer profitable) are done. Likewise, most likely, newspapers.4. The issue is not between newspapers as they are now and the Internet as it is now, but the kind of death throes newspapers have versus what the Internet will become by the time newspapers finally die. (And by “die” I don’t mean the complete and utter extinction of any and every kind of newspaper, just the demise of metropolitan dailies as a primary news source for millions of people.)5. As the kids say, deal with it.

Willy. . . I have never attacked you. In fact, you are probably right that Rupert Murdock is a factor in the WSJ’s success and the same would be true for FNC. But you are wrong when you intimate that either the WSJ or FNC are crack-pot right wingers. Of course, I don’t really know your definition of that phrase and it may just be that you consider Karl Marx a “moderate conservative.” Personally, I would attribute mastery of deception, lying, and twisting and spinning to liberals. I’ve always been very impressed with the liberal ability to ignore facts while making up pretend realities that comport with their moonbat points of view. And that’s the problem, really, isn’t it? Liberals hate the truth because it interferes with their fantasies. . . And by the way, Goxewu doesn’t like to be called Gox. . . speaking of. . .I agree with you, Goxewu that any desire to prolong the life of newspapers (on paper) is simply a romantic notion that will very quickly go the way of flash bulbs and the fedora. Boxing, on the other hand, will survive as the human race loves to watch two big galoots beat the livin’ hell out of each other. Horse racing? I don’t know, but I’ve got a sawbuck on Lucky Lady to show in the 5th at Aqueduct. . .

It’s “Murdoch,” isn’t it? I don’t mind being called “Gox” enough to make a stink about it. Better than “Pox.”"Mixed martial arts” bouts supply much more per-minute violence and blood than boxing and are overtaking it in popularity. If boxing survives, it’ll be with “little galoots” in the lighter weight classes in Latino and Asian countries. Horse racing takes up too much space, costs too much in horse transportation and facilities, and–with off-track betting and Internet gambling–attracts too few spectators, and suffers from a decreasing “handle” at the track. As they say, you can take the fork out now, it’s done. Flash blulbs and fedoras have been done for decades now. And I don’t/won’t “attack” Willynilly; I’ve just commented that his/her Limbaughesque-in-reverse rhetoric actually detracts from Willynilly’s really good arguments. If Willynilly wants to number him/herself among the millions of peopple who won’t take my advice, I can’t be responsible for the consequences.

None of my business, but…It’s difficult to believe that Willynilly is any sort of Republican. No prior words of praise for Bush #41, Sens. Grassely or Snowe, or Gov. Schwarzenegger, et al., all of whom are considered by Republicans to be more or less moderate and all of whom (save on certain issues) are reviled by the far right within the Republican Party. And none here. And no issues cited on which Willynilly takes a “moderate Republican” position as opposed to a Democratic one. Willynilly’s post is like me, who rails against organized religion, suddenly telling a believer-disputant that I’m actually a “moderate” Baptist minister, so we aren’t really that theologically far apart.And as the substance and tone of livefreeordie2′s comments elsewhere, e.g., on health care, testify, he’s a real rightwinger. (Not “nut-ball” and not impolite, but pretty paleoconservative.)So how about a little test? Where do Willynilly and livefreeordie2 stand on:* A public option in health care reform?* Abortion restrictions in health care reform?* Federal restriction on Wall Street executive compensation?* More troops for Aghanistan?* Gay marriage?* The Patriot Act?* Drilling for oil in Federal wildlife lands?* Cap and trade?* The Kyoto treaty?* Diplomatic relations with Cuba?* Don’t ask, don’t tell?

I’m uncomfortable about using forum to talk about things that are not particularly relevant to the initial post – which concerns newspapers. And all of the topics you mention involve complex answers and putting simple answers down only leads to “black and white ism.” There are things that are black and white and I subscribe to the notion that there is an objective right and wrong (unlike many of the remaining “do your own thing” members of my generation), but that is almost never appropriate in a public policy debate. And by the way, I’m not a “paleoconservative,” I am a classical liberal. Unfortunately, over many decades, the evil doers have stolen the word liberal. A liberal is a constitutionalist . . . a liberal believes in laissez-faire capitalism and individual freedom – and consequently individual responsibility, and certainly in limited government. The leftists of today – Greens, Progressives, Democrats, whatever – are nothing more than statists. . .busy bodies who think the government should have it’s nose into everyone’s business. . . the antithesis of individual freedom. But back to your question. . . Gay marriage, for example. I’m opposed to gay marriage. I think gays should be able to commit to each other and have the same legal rights as any heterosexual couple. I have no problem with them being recognized under the tax code and for social security. But it isn’t marriage. Marriage is a word that means something. It’s the commitment of a man and a woman to each other. . .it has meaning across cultures. It has religious significance. Find a different word. Make up a new word I don’t care. I thought Vermont had it right with Civil Unions. Don’t ask don’t tell – I spent a quarter of a century in the military. You do what you have to do on the battlefield, but in garrison, I would not have wanted to shower with someone that considered me a sex object. That’s why men and women have separate facilities. But it’s not practical for each man and each woman to have a private bathroom in the barracks and no one should be put into that kind of uncomfortable situation. I have no issue with homosexuals serving – but the logistical aspect of it must be dealt with appropriately. To some degree, Don’t ask, don’t tell does that, but it carries an unfortunate burden that isn’t fair either. No one likes to be patient, but on this (and probably gay marriage), the passage of time and new attitudes will eventually solve the problem.That should give you an idea of what I mean by issues not being black and white. So. . . now for some quick answers.*The government has no business being involved with health care delivery.*If abortion is an issue between a woman and her doctor, keep it that way and leave me and my tax dollars out of it.*The government has no business “bailing out” businesses in the first place. The government clearly has no business telling people what they can be paid for their work.*We have qualified generals – I leave it to them to protect this country.*I was and am comfortable with the Patriot act. I value the Constitution, but I have no desire, as Justice Robert Jackson said, to see doctrinaire logic “convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”*Diplomatic relations with Cuba? Of course we should lift it. It was a silly Democrat scheme when Kennedy imposed it and it was just as silly when the Torricelli Law was passed. Once it’s fully opened up and they start making money again, it will be just like China – on a mad dash to capitalism. But just like China, we should never forget that Castro and his cronies are murderous butchers.*Regarding the Environment. I lived in Europe when the Greens started to gain steam. Environmentalism was – and is – socialism by another name. Climate change? Of course, but not driven by mankind. I grew up in a steel town. I know what pollution is. We’ve done a great job of cleaning it up. And there’s always more to do. But whenever politicians or politically motivated groups tell me that 1. They don’t know for sure, but 2. If we don’t act immediately it will be to late, I grab for my wallet. I don’t know if it’s still around, but get a hold of the Green Party platform from the 2000 presidential elections. It’s an eye opener. So. . . no. I think cap and trade is a scam. And I agree with 95 US Senators that Kyoto is no good for America.Anything else?

OldCommprof – I can’t believe there’s anyone who actually reads the Boston Herald anymore. That really brought me up short, livefreeordie. You must live in Dawchesta.So. . .let me get this straight. You were a journalist in Boston, you can see the screen name I’m using, and you think I’m from Dorchester? Hmmmm. . . At any rate, the Globe is owned by the NY Times – unless they shut it down as they’ve threatened to do. The Herald is a decent newspaper and will undoubtedly be around long after the Globe. And by the way, Filenes went bust in 2006 and was bought up by Macys. Maybe they should have advertised in the Herald instead of the Globe after all.