[ShawTaylor]

Where is the mention of the real cause of the irreversible decline of the evil media: Their liberal bias, rabid anti-Americanism, their support for terrorists and every America-hating vermin on the planet, their arrogance, their lies, and their stupidity.
The malaise they are suffering from is not going to be cured by no $75 million campaign. The liberal media going to keep sinking in perpetuity, and a very good thing for America too.

And it's not just the newspaper business either, it's the entire liberal media and all it's ramifications, especially network news:

"Over the past 20 years, with the decline of the mainstream media and the rise of internet use and talk radio, the American people have gained many opportunities to get at the truth. No longer are Cronkite’s lies about the Tet offensive the only report we hear. No longer can Dan Rather use forged documents to smear an American president and go unchallenged, nor, without correction, can the New York Times, Reuters and the Associated Press publish doctored photographs and articles about Iraqi mass atrocities that never happened.
-----snip----
“The evening network news programs continued their steady but bumpy decline.
Between November 2004 and November 2005, ratings for the nightly news fell 6% and share fell 3%. That is an acceleration of the pace of decline in recent years. It translates into overall viewership on the three commercial nightly newscasts of 27 million viewers, or a decline of some 1.8 million viewers from November 2004. From the start of CNN in 1980, nightly news viewership for the Big Three networks has fallen by some 25 million, or 48%.

As measured in ratings, the percentage of nightly news viewing in all TV households, the three network evening newscasts had a combined 18.9 in November 2005, down from 20.2 a year earlier.

As measured in share, the percentage of just those television sets that are on at the time, the three newscasts earned a 37 share in November 2005, a drop from the 38 earned in November 2004.

In the previous editions of this report, we have illustrated the decline in viewership for the nightly network newscasts by using two landmarks: 1969, the historic peak of nightly news viewership, and 1980, the launch of the cable news network CNN. In 1969, the three commercial nightly network newscasts had a combined 50 rating and an 85 share. In 1980, they had a 37 rating and a 75 share. Based on November data for 2005, ratings have fallen 62% since 1969 and 48% since 1980. Share has fallen 56% since 1969 and 51% since 1980.”"

http://forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com/

[Milhous]

And it's not just the newspaper business either, it's the entire liberal media and all it's ramifications, especially network news:

A copy-and-paste from my home page illustrates one guy with relatively meager assets using a website to effectively compete against big media's television news industry and its vast infrastructure costing billions of dollars per year to maintain.

---

Congratulations Matt Drudge!

A third wave powerhouse in a second wave world.


Election night numbers:

ABC	9,670,000
NBC	7,000,000
CBS	6,310,000
FOXNEWS	3,050,000
CNN	2,963,000
DrudgeReport	2,300,000
MSNBC	1,926,000

Anyone With A Modem Can Report On The World

---

Evening News Viewership, All Networks

---

It's not your father's media

...Consumers of news now understand that, as Eastland says, "News is a thing made, a product, and that media with certain beliefs and values once made the news and then presented it in authoritative terms, as though beyond criticism. Thus did Walter Cronkite famously end his newscasts, 'And that's the way it is.' That way, period."

When, after the misreported Tet offensive of 1968 (a U.S. military victory described as a crushing defeat), Cronkite declared Vietnam a "stalemate," he spoke, as Mindich says, to "a captive audience." Nearly 80 percent of television sets in use at the dinner hour were tuned to one of the three network newscasts, and Cronkite had the largest share.

If that had been the broadcast marketplace in 2004, John Kerry would be president: The three networks reported the Swift boat veterans attacks on Kerry only after coverage of the attacks by cable news and talk radio forced Kerry to respond. The networks were very interested in charges pertaining to a Vietnam-era story about George W. Bush's alleged dereliction of National Guard duties -- until bloggers, another manifestation of new, small and nimble media, shredded it.

What’s broadcast?

December 1st, 2006
Read More: Exploding TV

What’s the point of broadcast TV anymore? Eighty-eight percent of Americans receive TV via cable or satellite. And now, of course, there are more ways to get video: the internet, mobile, and soon mobile satellite. Our kids have no idea what the difference between a broadcast and a cable channel is. Soon, they won’t have any idea what the difference between cable and internet TV is. And before you know it, they won’t know the difference between professional and amateur TV.

So do we tear down the broadcast towers? Not yet. But very soon, the cost benefit of owning that license and equipment will fall to nearly nil (one wonders when delivering via wi-fi mesh networks in cities and satelllite in boonies will become more effective and profitable — perhaps even now). Local TV licenses used to be money machines; now they’re shrinking. Viewership for networks of those stations continues to fall year after year, of course. The barrier to entry to making and now distributing TV is gone. Radio is arguably in better shape so long as we drive and satellite and radio-via-phone grow to critical mass, joining the iPod. And the radio business sucks.

What’s the point of broadcast? What’s the power of it? There’s far more perceived value to broadcast — by us older folks — than there is real value anymore. The business and regulatory attention given to broadcast is overblown. So what happens to broadcast? Does it matter?