Posted on 05/09/2006 6:32:25 PM PDT by dangus
And they blame it on the "net". They just will not accept the fact that it is because we are sick of supporting them and their un-American bias.
And the funny part is that the left somehow has delusioned themselves into believing that the MSM is right-wing and won'tsupport them either!
Boy, talk about the MSM backing the wrong horse.
There must be a gubmint grant for this somewheres ... ;-)
I've had DSL for three years.
I was just voicing my concern for my fellow man.
The Washington Times is tough to to get information on, because it's readership is so small, it doesn't appear on any of the charts. I think the Washington Examiner already outsells it. It could go up a couple hundred percent, and still not be one of the players: it's circulation is towards the maximum of five digits
YOu gotta admit; the colors are cooool.b
Well, I checked... they've just broken into six figures. Only took them 35 years!
over 100K? If it is climing and the others going down.... Maybe they will meet or pass the rags?
pinging myself for review tomorrow.
Yes local papers should have local news, but you must remember that for millions of Americans, the local rag is their only source of news. Not as many people get their news off the internet as you think. My own experience is that very few people I know get their news off the internet. Most of their "news" come from the same disreputable lib (Ny Times, WaPo, AP) sources as they've always come from.
My local rag has changed from very conservative when I was growing up forty years ago to ultra-liberal today. They print fluff local news stories on the front page and hardcore national and international news in little paragraphs in subsequent sections. And that's only some hard news...which are virtually all from lib sources. The internet is great, but don't overestimate the numbers of Americans who use it for news.
VERY good insight. Indeed, that's the only thing keeping, say, the NYT and the Globe from imploding completely. The Globe still has a good sports page (not as good as an obsessed fan can build for himself online, but good enough). The Times still has ads people are looking for, like "what theaters is United 93 playing in?" The front sections of both papers are a mixture of their own cant and opinion masquerading as national/international news, and wire stories that are outdated compared to what you can grab on Google News or Yahoo.
If you're a newspaper manager and haven't asked, "why should someone who disagrees with me buy our paper?" you're being measured for the tar pits right now.
until they change, they're just another special interest group with a newsletter.
Yep, and a dirty, smelly newsletter at that. My fingers aren't black after checking through my morning array of news and opinion sites, and I'm a lot better informed (especially about the war) than Globe and Times readers will be.
For the newspapers, it's a perfect storm: they've alienated roughly half of their readership, right as an alternative looms large in the firmament. Nuclear dumb attack.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
PS: I'd love to see the ABC circulation trends of TIME and Newsweek. Geronimo! -C18F
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.