Posted on 11/27/2004 11:31:07 AM PST by forest
Has anyone else noticed that the silent majority seems to be involved in a silent boycott of all the biased news outlets that have been attacking President Bush, our military and the nation's Christian heritage this past year?
If we believe a new report from the Audit Bureau of Circulations[1], which collects and monitors circulation data for newspapers and magazines, the liberal press is in deep doo-doo. Some of the nation's largest daily newspapers reported steep circulation declines and overall circulation is down across the industry. The top 20 papers suffered the biggest weekday and Sunday declines, among them the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post. Fancy that, eh.
Earlier, Newsday, Hoy, The Dallas Morning News and The Chicago Sun-Times were caught overstating their circulations by tens of thousands of copies each day. The parent companies of these papers had to set aside over $130 million to reimburse advertisers.
Even AP admitted it on November 1: "Circulation declined at most major newspapers across the country in the last half year, the latest blow for an industry already rocked by a scandal involving circulation misstatements that has undermined the confidence of investors and advertisers."[2]
The liberal L.A. Times reported a major loss in circulation numbers -- down by over 53,000 subscribers in just the first six months of this year and still declining.
Earlier this month, The Washington Post's Executive Editor, Leonard Downie, Jr., met with hundreds of employees to outline new plans to combat ever-declining circulation.
As repeatedly reported here, the newspaper industry has struggled for years with stagnant or decreasing readership levels. Most liberal newspapers are losing money. Many are almost bankrupt. So, they inflate their actual sales numbers so they can charge advertisers more. That keeps them in business for a few years longer. Until they get caught, that is.
The problem is, these companies are also lying to stockholders about the health of the corporation when they do that. The Securities and Exchange Commission kind of frowns on that stuff. Which means, these newspapers will soon see multi-million dollar fines -- some are arguing their case for that already. Then, they will realize much less income because they will be forced to lower advertising rates to where they should be, based on their actual circulation. That will put them even deeper in the red.
For those newspapers already running in the red, this means they will probably be going out of business soon. Interestingly enough, this mostly seems to apply to the liberal rags. Many conservative publications seem to be doing just fine.
Of course, this is a natural shakeout. Old Media -- the liberal contingent, anyway -- is no longer respected, or even believed, by what is approaching a majority in this country. After all, this is the dawning of the age of the New Media, and a more honest and fact-based viewpoint. The palpable media bias so obvious in the last election cycle went far to show the American people just how completely twisted and out of touch Old Media really is.
Unfortunately, though, Old Media is too stupid and/or bullheaded to realize they are stabbing themselves in the gut by being so blatantly biased. They refuse to clean house and hire reporters to report the news instead of "journalists" who want to twist the news to the left. Or, maybe stockholders are willing to sacrifice their corporations for the promotion of socialism.
Anyway, we look for a major wave of lay-offs to begin at the larger newspapers starting at the beginning of next year. By this time next year, there will be a few thousand well experienced liberal scribblers out of work and wandering the streets. (Unfortunately, some will then become teachers.)
Those who can do straight reporting, and/or write from a conservative viewpoint, may be very much in demand. As Old Media gives out one last gasp of reorganization to save their newspapers -- their publishing corporations -- their stockholders may very well demand that they dump the "journalists," try a round of honest "reporting" and perhaps tend towards a more conservative bent. If not, the writing is on the wall for them all. Few will survive the next five years.
Should we care? Yes. We still need local newspapers.
But, after the way the mainstream liberal media trashed President Bush these past many months, I'll have to say that they deserve what they get. Which, ultimately, could be bankruptcy.
1. <http://www.accessabc.com/>
2. <http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBCHP9911E.html>
Largest daily newspapers are in steep circulation decline.
False sales scandal undermined the confidence of investors and advertisers.
The SEC may be handing out multi-million dollar fines.
Many conservative publications seem to be doing just fine.
Old Media refuses to sweep out Socialism.
Look for lay-offs. Unfortunately, some will then become teachers.
They deserve what they get: bankruptcy.
IOW, they'll become appendages of the National Inquirer and other supermarket tabloids.
I am doing my part in boycotting them.
The biggest problem of the liberal (print) press is a sales strategy that targets liberals. Most liberals can't read.
I think it's time for a congressional inquiry into the deceptive business practices of "BIG NEWS". Sounds like a nation wide crisis! Just another example of the big CEO's getting lots of money and the poor working man holding the short end of the stick (and all that).
In my opinion, they can't ever increase circulation because no matter what they do, they will still be a single source using dirty paper as their medium. Now, if they want to produce well written, unbiased articles, I might make their web site one of the first stops on my surfing.
If they'll lie about their circulation figures, why should anything they print be believed?
Better that they go out of business to make room for conservative replacements.
I love it when a subscription solliciter telephones me regarding a subscription to the L.A. Times. I say, "Oh, I don't make monetary contributions to any political party". There is a moment of silence and then they say, "No, this is a subscription to the L.A. Times". I then say, "Yes, I know, and if I subscribe I am just making a contribution to the Democratic party and I do not make contributions to any political party". There is another moment of silence and then they say, "Oh, OK" and hang up.
Agree. When we read big city papers, we feel insulted and lectured-to. Who needs that?
Increasingly, newspapers are only good for local pullout circulars for shopping the chain stores. If you're a prep sports fan, you need the local paper to track high school teams.
Circulation inflation is the industry's dirty secret, and when the obvious corruption is exposed, the fines will sink the big, slow, stubborn, liberal papers.
Good Riddance!
Liberal papers face several problems, e.g., oversaturation for their market segment (liberal rags dominate and compete against one another while conservative news sources are fewer and farer inbetween). Fox is the only conservative media news on TV; Rush and host of others dominate the AM radio talk shows. The Internet is dominated by conservaties; The reason the Internet is dominated is due to fact checking and historic nature which does suit well the talking sound bites out of context or the emotional shrill screams, and the outright lies - all of which are scrutinized by legions of folks who can hold accountable the likes of Dan Rather and the NYT.
"Why do they hate us so?"
Answer: because we see through their partisan lies and hoaxed reports.
There goes the MSM's future customers!
Newspapers are virtually free anyway. They are paid for by the advertising. How else can they afford to give free home delivery and the week Monday-Saturday AWAY with just a subscription to the coverprice of the Sunday paper?
Paid circulation is the only figure that the advertisers will trust. Online they can somewhat measure click throughs.
As newspapers go online, they have found new ways to insult Conservatives. When photos are posted into the HTML, some of the filenames have been quite insulting to President Bush (asshole.jpg) his wife (I don't recall what this one said), and his supporters (brainwashedchild.jpg). They've been caught in these instances, who knows how widespread this is. CNN lied to America and said that "no one" knew the filename was there because it was on the AOL servers. SOMEONE had to link the file and see the name.
Newspapers are heading where the magazines went years ago - speciality and niche markets.
The liberal newspapers will never die off. They'll simply break into highly specialized writing geared toward a select audience. I believe we'll start seeing broadsheets reporting exclusively on business, the environment, etc., all from a liberal slant. The circulation will be fraction of what general readership newspaper can attract.
Those newspapers that want to attract a mass audience will need to start reporting the news straight, without a whining socialist slant, with the five Ws prominent, and a respect for what the readers want.
Right now newspapers are simply writing to impress other left wing newspapers to get a pat on the back from their liberal comrades.
Good riddance to the lot of 'em.
I wouldn't say that kids can't read. Maxim has changed the whole publishing industry for young America. Even Rolling Stone and Playboy have tried to alter their content to appeal to the 16-25 demographic.
Shorter articles are a part of that. Now it would be better to see a trend towards longer news items (as there are many lies of ommission) but at least fewer lines in an article means that it is harder to bury a lie within a news item or to clear an accused conservative in the final paragraph (sometime newspapers will alledge a serious charge on the front page and let the "part two" inside continuation clear up the allegations knowing full well that some people will just skim the headlines and first few paragraphs of articles to get the gist of a story.
Or not so silently. A couple of weeks ago my local left biased rag, The Seattle Times, called and offered a free subscription and was shocked that I didn't want their paper even when it was free. When asked why I told them exactly why and where I get my unbiased news. It didn't seem a shock...they must be hearing it ever more increasingly.
Newspapers are dead, they just haven't realized it yet. Daily printed news is over. It is purely for nostalgia and habit that we still have it.
We no longer have newsreels at the movie theaters. We no longer have town criers.
News in a paper is 8-36 hours old by the time is sees print. It gets older by the hour before it is delivered, picked up (off the porch or newsstand), and consumed/read.
Might as well go to weekly news tabloids/magazines instead. Sports scores and reporting can hold until publication, there can still be advertising supplements, tv guide, comics/puzzles/games, entertainment listings, restaurant reviews, editorials, long form analysis of news, obituaries, election guides, maps, timelines, etc.
If not once a week, at least reduce publication from DAILY. Such a waste of paper all to justify higher advertising rates.
24 headline news, hourly radio updates, internet access to wirestories, etc. all blow the print competition away when it comes to news. Any journalism awards are always going to be given to longer form news items, not breaking news (timely vs. exclusive).
Does ANYONE look to the print newspaper for weather information anymore? The latest satellite info will always outperform the fishwrap.
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.