"a list of a couple of hundred people who had canceled during the election cycle and had not been contacted"
Multiple ways to read this. If--as is likely--the paper had MANY more than 200 who canceled--this could be a waffle phrase to save the ad rates which drop when circulation drops. If there were only a couple of hundred who cancelled, (again that is very likely NOT the truth) then we need to help people understand that if we continue supporting these partisan media they will continue propagandizing...on OUR dime.
I note that the Exec. Ed. merely invited people to take THEIR time to travel and come to HER office....any FOOL that does will be used as cannon fodder for their future "objective" posturing....
Yes, i picked that up too. was the NYT trying to say that the effect was a small & insignificant impact on the paper, or where those 200 part of a much larger group? I only know that the rules are being rewritten folks! We can topple newsprint media into irrelevance if they do not report fairly and not show obvious partisan bias. We only need to harness technology in the right way... Blogging is the new flamethrower for us!
Last year when they used the death of a local Marine in Iraq to slap "W" - even after an appeal from the Marines family that stated they supported Bush, the chronicle's subscription rate dropped by the thousands...
They have now resorted to throwing thousands of free papers on area lawns just so they can claim a circulation rate high enough to charge more for their ads.