Skip to comments.
Newspapers Can't Shake Circulation Doldrums
Editor & Publisher ^
| May 3, 04
| Mark Fitzgerald and Jennifer Saba
Posted on 05/05/2004 9:17:27 AM PDT by churchillbuff
Even as advertisers return with gusto to newspapers, circulation continues to be a lagging economic indicator.
Fully half of the nation's largest 38 newspapers reported weekday circulation declines, according to an analysis by the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) of the latest FAS-FAX numbers released this afternoon by the Audit Bureau of Circulations for the six-month period ending March 2004.
(Excerpt) Read more at editorandpublisher.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: ccrm; media; newspapers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: churchillbuff
The Washington Post was clearly the highest-profile circulation loser, dropping 23,814 copies, or 3% of its circulation, to 772,553. The San Francisco Chronicle failed to hold on to the big gains it rolled up while the rival San Francisco Examiner was floundering under the former ownership of the feckless Fang family. The Chron was off 2.6% to 501,135.
To: churchillbuff
No one wants to read a leftist rag, that is why circulation is falling
To: boxsmith13
Bingo :)
4
posted on
05/05/2004 9:21:58 AM PDT
by
mewzilla
To: churchillbuff
Maybe if these newspapers would start doing serious journalistic reporting, people would read their paper; NOT their spin.
5
posted on
05/05/2004 9:22:16 AM PDT
by
smiley
To: churchillbuff
Similarly, the Post managed nearly double-digit growth -- up 9% to 678,012 -- that reflects its single-copy price of a quarter, compared to 50 cents for the competing tabloid Daily News. Even though the slightly right of center post is racking up huge growth stats, the leftist editors of America's newspapers would rather go out of business than change their ways...
6
posted on
05/05/2004 9:25:02 AM PDT
by
2banana
(They want to die for Islam and we want to kill them)
To: boxsmith13; Grampa Dave; Mo1
No one wants to read a leftist rag, that is why circulation is falling
Indeed
7
posted on
05/05/2004 9:25:06 AM PDT
by
EdReform
To: churchillbuff
This business is as dead as the proverbial dodo. Electronic news is faster and more comprehensive. Newsprint is expensive and will get more expensive. Personally, I'll not miss any of these liberal fishwrappers.
To: churchillbuff
"The Wall Street Journal posted an extraordinary circulation gain because it added to its total several hundred thousand online subscribers who were not counted a year ago. The FAS-FAX indicates that the Journal's total circulation, which jumped 15.4% to 2,101,017, includes 336,813 online subscriptions that count as paid circulation under ABC rules. That's about 56,000 more than the year-to-year gain of 280,417. Similarly, the Post managed nearly double-digit growth -- up 9% to 678,012 -- that reflects its single-copy price of a quarter, compared to 50 cents for the competing tabloid Daily News." I guess the masses are waking up to the fact that liberal media bias really does exist (although we've known this for years, it is just now starting to filter down, thanks mainly to Bernie Goldberg hitting the mainstream with his tome.) Go WSJ & Post!!! "The Washington Post was clearly the highest-profile circulation loser, dropping 23,814 copies...." and it will keep going south and it won't be pretty........
9
posted on
05/05/2004 9:28:04 AM PDT
by
rocky88
("It's goin to be the summer of George! (W. Bush, that is!)")
To: 2banana
Even though the slightly right of center post is racking up huge growth stats
I think ideology might be a factor in circulation at the very margins, but the more fundamental factor is that the newspaper industry is a dinosaur in an electronic age. I'm not saying anything we haven't all heard a million times: When you can get up to the minute reports on radio and TV, and internet, the newspaper shrinks in importance. It may retain a niche audience, but as today's young (non-newspaper-reading) generation ages, even that niche audience will shrink.
To: EdReform
Fully half of the nation's largest 38 newspapers reported weekday circulation declines, according to an analysis by the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) of the latest FAS-FAX numbers released this afternoon by the Audit Bureau of Circulations for the six-month period ending March 2004. Here's a hint to these nit wits .. Stop lying to us and maybe we'll buy the dang paper??
11
posted on
05/05/2004 9:29:33 AM PDT
by
Mo1
(Make Michael Moore cry.... DONATE MONTHLY!!!)
To: Malesherbes
The national news articles often run in our local paper at least two days after I've read them on FR! I still need the newspaper for local news and sports. There's no up to the minute board for that, and I rarely find time to watch the local TV news.
To: churchillbuff
Boohoo. This is self-inflicted. If they were not such rigid leftist ideologues, they might appeal to a broader audience.
To: Mo1
I wouldn't. I stopped reading the NYTimes daily because of media bias, but continue to get my local paper. Typically it piles up unread, and I bring piles of old ones on airplane flights where I catch up.
I don't read conservative newspapers either.
I get 95% of my news or more from internet newspaper sites, Free Republic and several weblogs. I also am a paid subscriber to the electronic Wall Street Journal and visit it approximately weekly.
Newspapers are not going to die like dinosaurs, though. They will evolve into something else, like movies did when radio and then TV, and now the internet, supplanted them (in fact, as we know, the movie industry is bigger today financially than it was in its heyday, just as cruise-ships are bigger than they were when they were the only form of trans-Atlantic travel).
14
posted on
05/05/2004 9:38:56 AM PDT
by
Piranha
To: rocky88
I'm a new print copy WSJ subscriber. We exist.
To: churchillbuff
Clicked to the link and read the whole article. Noted that
Editor & Publisher correctly noted that two newspapers, the
Wall Street Journal and the
New York Post accounted for almost all of what little gains in circulation existed.
Then the article seeks to denigrate the gains at these two newspapers by saying that the WSJ's gain was due to its inclusion of "paid subscriptions to its website." And it says that the growth at the Post was due to its holding its cost per issue to "25 cents, unlike its main competition which charges 50 cents per issue."
Unlike Editor & Publisher, I note that these two newspapers are on the conservative side of the political spectrum. Maybe, just maybe, these two newspapers gained in circulation for the same reason that Fow News is eating the lunch of other networks, they PUBLISH more of the truth, and less of the usual Dem/lib trash and twaddle.
Nah, that couldn't be the explanation, could it? [End sarcasm.]
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "Honesty Problems with Kerry and Gorelick: Pin the Truth on the Democrat."
16
posted on
05/05/2004 9:40:03 AM PDT
by
Congressman Billybob
(www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
To: churchillbuff
Probably due to the reduction in fresh fish being sold, thereby obviating the need for these papers with no other redeeming value.
To: EdReform
In an abortive effort to cut costs, the Dallas Morning News fired all its free lance writers, including me.
One of the problems is the subscribers and readers are mostly middle-aged and old, people who grew up reading the paper and aren't quite as inclined to get news off the net.
I, for one, like to have a paper, but the front page of the DMN is (almost) useless, it is so slanted. The rest of the paper is one of the best in the nation, but they keep trying to attract younger and hispanic readers who just aren't interested and ignore their base.
18
posted on
05/05/2004 9:43:44 AM PDT
by
altura
(Sometimes the ground rises up at me, but I don't fall, but if I do, I have on a really cute outfit.)
To: churchillbuff
Um...I think perhaps in some remote way a little thing called the internet might play a role in the decline of hardcopy newspapers. Don't quote me.
19
posted on
05/05/2004 9:50:40 AM PDT
by
beckett
To: altura
In an abortive effort to cut costs, the Dallas Morning News fired all its free lance writers, including me.
Tell me, has the DMN moved to the left recently? It was once a very conservative paper, if I remember correctly.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson