(Bet you thought I was going to ask: "What's a Henweigh?")
Posted on 07/28/2005 12:54:02 PM PDT by MNJohnnie
A little more than a henweigh
(Bet you thought I was going to ask: "What's a Henweigh?")
Damn. Birds of the world
are meeting in conclave and
will respond shortly . . .
Re#19 True. Also true for dailies. BUT, there have also been a lot of cancellations because of the bias. NY Post, Washington Times (and WSJ I think) are doing fine...
Yes, intresting how the LA Times Ad revenue is also in the crapper
This sounds like the begining of the end for newsweek, they will go from weekly to bi-weekly to monthly to gone.
Cable has also hurt Newsweek and others. Again, why pay for something you can get for free. Not to mention that people have wanted a more Conservative perspective in the media.
Ah but Newsweek is linked to that "powerhouse" MSNBC and has their own website and is bannered on MSN.com. With all the web traffic that they are exposed to, why isn't "News weak" making up for it there?
Does this mean Eleanor Clift will have to take some unpaid leave? (chuckle! snork!)
Yeah, right. You can't flip a channel without being pounded with a new car ad, yet Newsweak can't seem to suck a few of those dollars their way. As my Indian co-worker would say--"Boolsh!t".
And subscriptions. Also, this is not a recent event--witness the Tribune Co. inflated subscription/sales scandal...
I read it through the whole Watergate story. I believe Newsweak did 53 (or was it 57?) cover stories on Watergate. It was the biggest thing in the history of the world as far as they were concerned (because they were owned by WaPo? don't know if they were then).
After that, they lead the leftward charge of the media to the left. I stopped reading it in the mid-'70's. In 1979 I discovered National Review.
A friend of mine gets it (well, actually, his wife gets it). I read it when I visit them.
I'm always amazed by how thin it's gotten. It's no more than half its thickness, back in the '70's. Some of that may be due to thinner paper, but I'm dead certain it has fewer pages. A lot fewer pages.
Also, the entertainment/celebrity coverage is far more extensive. In some issues, tabloid-type coverage takes up half the magazine. They seem to be trying to morph into something that will attract the "People" readership.
Their bias level is amazing. They interject their political point of view into virtually every paragraph of every story. That point of view is absolutely, unwaveringly left-wing, anti-Bush, anti-GOP, and smugly, subtly, anti-American.
The whole thing is infused with a sort of snarky pseudo-intellectual tone of condescension that assumes that you, the reader, agrees with them on everything: Bush is an idiot, Cheney is really running everything and is a crook, Bill Clinton's presidency was the Golden Age, Hillary will save us, teenagers all do it and there's nothing anyone can do to stop them, those darn Republicans are the cause of terrorism, global warming, homelessness, and poverty in the devellloping wooorld, on and on, forever and ever, amen.
Time is exactly the same. USN&WR is probably the same also, but is so boring and lame that I haven't even seen it in a doctor's office or barber shop for about the last 10 years.
(steely)
As of March 31, 2005, the Times had an average daily circulation of 103,017, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. This is dwarfed by the 751,871 held by the Washington Post, although its readership grew nearly 3% in 2004, whilst the Post's dropped 2.7%.
Source: Wikipedia
You're right. The Internet is a big factor. I dumped Newsweek long ago and my local newspaper as well. With the money I save I try to contribute to FR every time there is a drive.
Thanks for the confirmation. Whatever the numbers, it will be a while before the Compost (and NY Slimes) don't write the MSM's anti-American agitprop, er, mantra, for the day...
Maybe Eleanor and Helen Thomas can share a one bedroom apartment in D.C. being as they will have to live on less because the publications they work for are slowly going broke!! How sweet it will be.....bye-bye Newsweek!
"Not to mention that people have wanted a more Conservative perspective in the media."
Liberals are finding that they can't make it when there is competition from the Right. Example: 1. media; 2. ballot issues and elections.
Good riddance to this rag. I dropped this piece of trash a decade ago when they did the disparaging issue on Thomas Jefferson. Granted, Tom was not perfect, nobody is, but he did much for the founding of the country and deserves an appropriate level of respect. Certainly more than the slimball writer deserves. Newsweek is just part of the old media monopoly that has been busted by the New Media.
Yes, yes, typical liberal philosophy--anybody that does the right thing must really be cheating somebody; any hard working successful person got that way by cheating the elderly, any person who accomplished anything beyond the capabilites of the lazy liberal must have done so for inappropriate reasons. I have to say, if liberals didn't have the envy-teat to suck on they would all be in the ground. Liberalism--tearing down the accomplishements of others.
LOL!! Could you imagine those two hags debating in a tiny D.C. studio? "Oim TAWKING here!" "Oim TAWKING here!" at high decibels, all the livelong day. Sheesh, I'd hate to share a wall with those withered hobgoblins...
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.