Posted on 05/08/2006 7:51:09 AM PDT by george76
Newspaper circulation fell 2.6 percent in the six-month period ending in March, according to data released Monday, as the industry continued to struggle with competition from other media outlets and the Internet.
The decline in average paid weekday circulation was about the same as the previous time newspapers reported six-month circulation figures for the period ending last September, according to the Newspaper Association of America, a trade group.
The NAA reported that average paid circulation at Sunday newspapers fell 3.1 percent versus the same period a year ago, also a comparable decline with the last time circulation figures were reported.
Several top newspapers reported significant declines in the period, including Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times, down 5.4 percent at 851,832; The Washington Post, down 3.7 percent at 724,242; the New York Daily News, also down 3.7 percent at 708,477. News Corp.'s New York Post slipped 0.7 percent to 673,379.
The largest slump at a major daily came at the San Francisco Chronicle, where average paid weekday circulation fell 15.6 percent to 398,246 as the newspaper continued to cut back on less desirable circulation such as copies paid for by advertisers and then distributed for free.
Patricia Hoyt, a spokeswoman for the Chronicle, said the cutbacks began at the beginning of last year and involved copies that "advertisers didn't value, were quite costly and essentially had no impact on our readership."
The Chronicle, which is owned by Hearst Corp., reported a similar decline in paid circulation for the previous six-month reporting period that ended last September.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
It's because most of them are editorial papers, not news papers.
Several other large newspapers also reported declines...
The Boston Globe, down 8.5 percent to 397,288, and
The Atlanta Journal- Constitution, down 6.7 percent to 365,011.
The Globe is owned by The New York Times Co.
They need to be more biased to the left.
The NYT claims a slight increase. But I have to believe they are giving away copies to increase their "circulation" numbers.
Our local newspaper has had to make cutbacks, probably because of the decline in circulation. In fact, a beloved editorial cartoonist was just let go -- he had been with the paper for a long time. I liked him -- he was generally "fair and balanced." The paper instead decided to go with its other cartoonist, Rob Rogers. Used to like Rogers, but he has gone from fair and balanced to being a consistent anti-Bush critic.
I don't subscribe -- I buy the paper just to read the comics and see what's playing in the theaters. Most of my news I get online...sometimes from tv.
Newspapers are doomed. Except for the online version.
How many people under the age of 40 read anything besides 3 or 4 line emails?
Ask 9 out of 10 people what they are reading and they will give you a blank look of "What...me read a book."
The NY Slimes lie.
They give away newspapers and count them as paid to trick their advertisers into paying higher ad rates.
I have not bought a newspaper in over FIVE years. I refuse to donate to liberals.
This part of the story really makes my day. I cancelled the Gay Rhonicle in 1992 because of their vicious attacks on President Bush and lies and spins about their boy/Clintoon.
"The largest slump at a major daily came at the San Francisco Chronicle, where average paid weekday circulation fell 15.6 percent to 398,246 as the newspaper continued to cut back on less desirable circulation such as copies paid for by advertisers and then distributed for free."
"Patricia Hoyt, a spokeswoman for the Chronicle, said the cutbacks began at the beginning of last year and involved copies that "advertisers didn't value, were quite costly and essentially had no impact on our readership."
"The Chronicle, which is owned by Hearst Corp., reported a similar decline in paid circulation for the previous six-month reporting period that ended last September."
Makes you wonder about the intelligence of newspaper people who thought that "english only" was a racist attack. Jeez, do you think spanish speakers are going to buy an english only newspaper? Oh yeah, the likelihood that mexicans are going to read anything is laughable.
Going on 15 myself, and have never been more fully informed in my life.
Anybody know how the numbers shape up for pubs like the Washington Times?
Well, newspapers are good for wrapping fish...or lining the cats' litter boxes. :)
Roger that. When I bought them before, it was mostly for the sports. Then I got tired of sports and the crap in sports, so what little I get, I get off the internet now.
Katie Couric is on her way to save the MSM with her fair and balanced reporting. /sarc
I thought that you might like this part...
"Chronicle, where average paid weekday circulation fell 15.6 percent ..."
Also...
How many people over the age of 40 buy these papers ?
No New York Times?
That's interesting. So, if I read that correctly, "paid circulation" includes copies paid for by advertisers but distributed free?
As billyjeff would say, "It depends on what the meaning of 'paid' is."
The Gay Rhonicle is so desperate, basically every medical office in N California gets free copies and many get free copies on Sat and Sunday when no one is even in these offices.
The Gay Rhonicle cooks its books re paid subscribers in a manner that would make Enron look like a minor player.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see newspaper readership continue to drop. People are getting tired of purchasing newspapers that don't report the news but purport some liberal agendas (and don't even have decent coupons on Sunday). We took the Dallas Morning News when we first moved here and have discontinued. I think we're going back to the Washington Times by mail.
Budget for "education" increases again and again and again..
Semper Fi
See my comments about the GayRhonicle cooking its circulation books to overcharge its advertisers:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1628573/posts?page=22#22
The GayRhonicle has a long and proud corporate tradition of making Marxist Homosexual Wet Dreams/lies into articles posing as news and journalism. If you can't trust them re their articles and editorials, why would anyone trust them re their bogus circulation numbers.
Niche papers are growing for the most part. My monthly business publication has grown 240% over he last two years.
The big city papers are suffering from the same illness as big cities.
"I have not bought a newspaper in over 5 yrs,i refuse to donate to liberals."Same here.Local papers here(Tampa Tribune+StPeteTimes)are blantantly anti-US,pro-illegal,etc,etc...I believe the drop in subscriptions/sales are a direct result of readers who are simply fed up with the bs the liberal media try to ram down our throats.
That is the reason I stopped giving them a quarter for the rags. Anyway, the bird died, so didn't need them any more. :)
Many smaller papers are selling out to Gannett and other lazy, production mills.
They copy the newswire reports and fill up the rest with advertising.
Circulation for Top 20 Newspapers in USA
Mon May 08 2006 08:55:53 ET
Here it is. The paid weekday circulation of the nation's 20 largest newspapers for the six-month period ending March 31, 2006.
1. USA Today, 2,272,815, up 0.09 percent
2. The Wall Street Journal, 2,049,786, down 1 percent
3. The New York Times, 1,142,464, up 0.5 percent
4. Los Angeles Times, 851,832, down 5.4 percent
5. The Washington Post, 724,242, down 3.7 percent
6. New York Daily News, 708,477, down 3.7 percent
7. New York Post, 673,379, down 0.7 percent
8. Chicago Tribune, 579,079, up 0.9 percent
9. Houston Chronicle, 513,387, down 3.6 percent
10. The Arizona Republic, 438,722, down 2.1 percent
11. Newsday, Long Island, 427,771, down 2.7 percent
12. The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., 398,329, up 0.9 percent
13. San Francisco Chronicle, 398,246, down 15.6 percent
14. The Boston Globe, 397,288, down 8.5 percent
15. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 365,011, down 6.7 percent
16. Star Tribune of Minneapolis-St. Paul, 362,964, down 2.9 percent
17. The Philadelphia Inquirer, 350,457, down 5.1 percent
18. Detroit Free Press, 345,861, up 0.04 percent
19. The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, 343,163, down 1.6 percent
20. St. Petersburg Times, Florida, 323,031, down 4.4 percent
I may as well go ahead and post the whole 9 yards for this potentially Drudge induced thread. :))
Gn 22:17 your descendants shall take possession of the gates of their enemies
Newspaper sale$ decline should be blamed on the Journos
. . .
People who work at journalism full time ought to be able to do a better job of it than people for whom it is a hobby. But that's not going to happen as long as we "professional" journalists ignore stories we don't like and try to hide our mistakes. We think of ourselves as "gatekeepers." But there is not much future in being a gatekeeper when the walls are down.
I haven't subscribed to the NY Times for about ten years. My wife sometimes would pick up a copy of the Sunday paper at the local market after church, apparently because she missed some of the features, but in the last few years I've noticed that she did so less often, and now she seems to have dropped the habit.
There's no worse waster of trees or stuffer of landfills than the Sunday NY Times.
But I do kind of miss it for lighting my brushpiles with.
The dire situation is such that one major paper is now little more than one of those ad-filled free newspaper shoppers tossed on the lawn.
The major paper is distributed free to most homes with targeted circulations paid for by advertisers.
The GayRhonicle is bogus.
Have they fooled enough advertisers to waste their ad dollars ?
Or do the companies who buy ads do not care if the ads are effective ?
Is being politically correct in The GayRhonicle world enough ?
Great news.
I wonder if the conservative newspapers like the Washington Times, or Wall Street Journal, are doing BETTER this year?
"War is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military," Georges Clemenceau, 1841-1929
"News reporting is too important to be left to Journalists," Walter Abbott, 1950 -
THAT'S BEAUTIFUL!!!
Definitely good news.
I fear that every medium starts out as a great liberation for free thought, and then soon becomes the very tool of establishment. Printing press, news casts, and - I fear - the internet. How long before web-based news is monopolized? Afterall - ANYONE could print their own newspaper to compete with the NYT. The problem was competing for advertizers. All of the factors that allowed them to dominate (quality presentation, mechanical layout, etc) could eventually translate into digital media... and then we are right back where we started.
The worst culprits that are looming as evidence for this (in my opinion): Google and Wiki. Google, simply because their founders are hardcore leftists, 100%, worse than any liberals at the Times. So far that doesn't affect their search engine, but for how long.... Wiki, I claim, because it is governed mainly by persistent "academics". It is a whole 'nother topic, but I have personally found entries to be consistently bias and outright lying in favor of leftist opinions.
These are two of the biggest "starting points" on the internet, currently. That is a very bad thing.
Glad to hear that the Boston Globe is ahead of the curve, losing 6% of their subscribers last year.
The Boston Globe, down 8.5 percent to 397,288, in six months.
Thus, annualized...even nicer.
BILL Clinton has made corporate reform one of his top causes since leaving the White House. He calls for more "socially responsible" investing, better protection of workers and greater diversity in corporate management.
At the same time, he condemns cronyism, excessive pay for top management and an alleged emphasis on short-term profits at the expense of workers.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton — a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee — has bashed corporations for their failure to live up to their pension obligations.
Yet, as the senior adviser to two investment funds managing public pension funds, Bill Clinton has himself promoted an investment fund that promises to put money into "lower-income urban and rural communities" — but instead devotes its cash to Al Gore's upstart cable channel and his wife's financial supporters.
AT first glance, it seemed the perfect fit: Bill Clinton, corporate reformer, signing on as a senior adviser (and "active adviser," according to a company press release) to the Yucaipa Corporate Initiatives Fund and the Yucaipa American Fund.
Both get all their cash from pension funds from public-school teachers and government workers in California and New York state.
"But a venture that was supposed to help minority businesses and secure the future of pensioners in two of America's biggest states seems to have done anything but."
Yucaipa told the San Francisco Weekly that Gore's enterprise "has a strong commitment to increase the representation of women and people of color."
But the upper management of the network is completely white.
The funds' real emphasis, in short, seems to be Democratic cronyism.
Another example: The Yucaipa Corporate Initiatives Fund recently backed up a bid by Diversified Investment Management Group to take over Piccadilly Restaurants.
DIMG is described by Fashion Week Daily "as a front for Ron Burkle," close friend and financial supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton. He's also the chairman of Yucaipa.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/61087.htm
Meanwhile, the workers whose pensions have been invested in Yucaipa are getting a terrible deal.
According to CALSTARS, California teachers have already committed $61.9 million of the $150 million that they promised Yucaipa. As of last March 31, three years after the venture started, they'd seen a grand total of $837 come back to them.
Overall, the rate of return since the funds launched have been a loss of 12.1 percent.
CALPERS has not done much better. After pouring more than $116 million into various Yucaipa ventures since 2002, it's seen a return of $55,963.
AT the same time, Yucaipa is also collecting hefty fees for managing the pension funds' investments — more than $3 million a year from CALPERS, and $3.5 million a year from the New York Common Retirement Fund.
How much of this ends up in Bill Clinton's pocket is anybody's guess. He's not disclosing his fees.
And why is Sen. Hillary Clinton, who appears to be so concerned about the state of our pension systems, silent about this?
"Meanwhile, the workers whose pensions have been invested in Yucaipa are getting a terrible deal.
According to CALSTARS, California teachers have already committed $61.9 million of the $150 million that they promised Yucaipa. As of last March 31, three years after the venture started, they'd seen a grand total of $837 come back to them.
Overall, the rate of return since the funds launched have been a loss of 12.1 percent.
CALPERS has not done much better. After pouring more than $116 million into various Yucaipa ventures since 2002, it's seen a return of $55,963.
AT the same time, Yucaipa is also collecting hefty fees for managing the pension funds' investments — more than $3 million a year from CALPERS, and $3.5 million a year from the New York Common Retirement Fund."
I love to send stuff like this to the retired teachers in California, I know and other state employees who are retired or about to retire.
Ask those retiring teachers and state workers...
Why is old media ignoring what Bill Clinton and Yucaipa are doing with hundreds of millions in pension money?
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.
