Circulation not a full measure of newspapers' reach [barf or giggle?]

Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 11/12/05 | Angela Tuck

[madprof98]

If it isn't about blacks, Jews, illegal Latinos or how you can redistribute wealth to those who haven't worked for it, it isn't fit for your opinion paper."

I wonder how many e-mails she had to sift through in order to find one that brings race into play?

[RayChuang88]

Hey Ms. Tuck, how about the fact that Americans are totally sick and tired of the mainstream media being a shill for the Democratic National Committee?

[SIDENET]

"In our surveys we find that Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to read The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,"

LOL. Your surveys are a joke.

[Gondring]

Much of the decline in paid newspaper subscriptions centers on people's changing lifestyles, said Lynch, who is responsible for research and development of new products. She spends most of her time analyzing what readers say about the AJC.

Logic- or math-impaired FReepers miss this point. The decline in readership has hurt conservative papers more than liberal ones, since it's the small conservative ones that have less "cushion" against the high costs. Unfortunately, many cities that used to have two papers and some competition now just have one liberal rag. :-(

The real problem here is that Americans are reading less and care less about being informed, because no young readers are replacing the older reasders who are passing on..

[Eric in the Ozarks]

How dare anyone have their own opinion ?

[bronxboy]

People have been polled in Georgia and have said that the liberal bias of AJC is why they do not take the paper. There used to be a conservative afternoon paper, but the AJC shut it down because of declining circulation. Of course, the conservative paper was far more popular, but that's the thing about liberals...they will all lose their jobs while they mumble it is not us the lifestyle is different than before. Circulation doesn't tell the true story either because I received a full year of Monday-Sunday delivery for $60.00. This is cheaper than buying a Sunday paper (must have coupons). They are giving away the paper almost in order to inflate their circulation numbers. I merely do not read the editorials except for Wooten and a few conservatives from time to time. I do not believe anything I read there. I read the cooking section and the Cherokee section.

[APFel]

So let me see if I can summarize this article:

"Dear advertisers,

While our numbers may be down, our research shows that people still read us. You see, people SHARE their papers now.

And by the way, people who think we are biased are wrong. Keep your advertising dollars here. Please. Pretty please. Don't make us beg.

Love and kisses,
The Atlanta Journal Constitution staff (who have families to feed including small and cute children)."

APf

[JustDoItAlways]

It is time we stopped calling these liberal rags "newspapers".

They are "Tabloid Magazines" only.

[Jet Jaguar]

ps. The cooking section is bunk as well. :0)

[Casloy]

"We estimate that there are 3.7 readers for every copy of the paper."

Yeah, and I estimate 90% of everyone who meets me thinks I am better looking than George Clooney. I love living in a fantasy world, too.

[marvlus]

Angela Tuck and Cynthia Tucker - are they related?

[cake_crumb]

"We'd be naive to think this school of thought hasn't cost us some readers. But many subscribers don't share this view."

That's so far out it's on the outer left arm of the galaxy.

[Grampa Dave]

She should tell that to the people who buy ads and to the stock holders of that rag.

[GeorgiaDawg32]

Actually I buy the local Cherokee paper..The only reason I even look at the AJC, aside from when I put it in the garbage, is for the girlfriend to get her coupons..

[Paloma_55]

---- The real problem here is that Americans are reading less and care less about being informed, because no young readers are replacing the older reasders who are passing on----

Reading is work. It takes time and thought which consumes carbohydrates in an unpleasant way.

Now, sitting in front of a TV watching your news be fed to you with a dancing bear... THAT is entertaining and informative... well, entertaining.

Conservatives have moved to talk radio and the internet a long time ago. Liberals are moving to the TV and the internet. A huge number of people are just flat turned off and other than catching a political ad on TV, they are playing video games or watching a reality TV show.

[PeterPrinciple]

"In our surveys we find that Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to read The Atlanta Journal-Constitution," said Stacy Lynch, the AJC's director of innovations. "We also know that more metro residents rate us as moderate or conservative than liberal in our political leanings

The paper has a director of innovations? That alone tells you of the liberal leaning.

[Pontiac]

That's so far out it's on the outer left arm of the galaxy.

NO it’s true. Many of our readers also are subscribers of Workers Daily.

They find that we are centrist or conservative.

[junta]

The Chicago Tribune runs nothing but women and minorities hit hardest stories in every section, even in the food section the black eyed peas are overcoming "discrimination."

[madprof98]

The decline in readership has hurt conservative papers more than liberal ones, since it's the small conservative ones that have less "cushion" against the high costs.

I am hard pressed to think of examples of conservative papers like this. In Atlanta, the afternoon Journal was basically just the morning Constitution with a slightly more conservative editorial page. The news slant was exactly the same since the news stories were mostly pulled off the wire. Perhaps you're thinking of small-town papers, many of which have fallen victim to lifestyle changes. But I don't think people are turning away from the New York Times and its clones for those same reasons.

[bronxboy]

I get the Cherokee paper also. I love to read. I am probably the last American who really loves to read newspapers- alas not liberal newspapers.