Free Republic

"He added: 'You may argue that they're cannibalizing their print content, but at least they're recapturing some of it.' Still, the numbers are too small to make a difference, he said."

The paragraph about online revenue is the key reason why the outlook is not good for these newspaper giants. Even if they converted their operations over to be 100% Internet based, the amount of money they could get for online advertising wouldn't come close to what they could get back in the days of paper & ink.

In the old days, the costs of printing and distributing a newspaper were so prohibitively high that most cities wound up with one dominant newspaper that had an effective monopoly on certain kinds of advertising in a given market. For example, if you wanted to run a help wanted ad or a print ad for a major department store, there was really only one outlet in any given metro area that made sense. By going online, these well-established brands lose much of their value and their monopoly status. Sure the website for a particular newspaper might get a lot of eyeballs in its home market, but it would be relatively easy for a competitor to come in and start up a rival site that would compete for the local advertising $$$. So while the dominant daily newspaper in Anytown USA will probably continue to exist in one form or another, they'll never again be at the top of the uneven playing field that they got so used to over all those years.

As I've said on a previous thread, I'm not convinced that this process means the end of the liberal media establishment, but it is always fun to see pompous elitists take it on the chin and not even know what hit them.

"Sooner or later they are going to have to go looking for more readers."

The newspaper industry has spent the past 30+ years agonizing over how they can get more readers, but nothing they've done has stopped the long, slow, steady slide. Producing content that doesn't insult conservative readers would help, but at this point it's probably too late for them to mend fences with potential conservative readers. Most of us gave up on them a long time ago. Of course they're so arrogant in their belief system they would never try it anyway.

The real problems they face are: 1. The ever-increasing array of leisure time activity options; 2. Less overall interest in current affairs among the public regardless of whether the coverage is biased or not, and 3. They are using a 19th century model to communicate information in the 21st century, and 4. They are having a hard time adapting to the changing composition and demands of their traditional advertising base. They can overcome #3 by accelerating their transition to the Internet. #1 is an irreversable trend and #2 might be overcome in the long run, but I don't see it changing any time soon. There is probably a solution to #4, but it will take more proactive and innovative thinking than the industry has shown themselves capable of in the past.

I hate to dampen the party here, but I'm not sure that the misfortunes of these companies is really that much of a setback to the liberal media in the long run. Newspaper companies are in trouble more because they are outmoded and inefficient delivery systems more than anything else. Sure there are many of us who don't read the papers because of their obvious leftward political slant, but in the broad scheme of things, that's only part of why they are losing readers and ultimately advertisers - and almost certainly not the biggest part.

When this all shakes out, NYT, Tribune, McClatchy et. al. may go out of business or be severely diminished, but ultimately I suspect that many of the journalists who work for them will find some outlet on the Web or elsewhere that will run their biased content. I suppose there's a lot to be said for the idea that this process might even the playing field a little more as it is taking away some of the entrenched and established outlets which are living off their past reputations. Still, I can't help but think that conservatives will always have a disadvantage when it comes to media voice as we are the ones who are more likely to be out actively doing things, making money, etc. while the liberals are more naturally drawn to passively sitting around and commenting/second guessing on what others are doing (which, like it or not, is a good part of what modern journalism entails).

I was a Masshole for about 5 years. When I lived there started out listening to Jay, but he lost me with his constant tone of defeatism and negativity. Then I switched over to Howie and found it a much more entertaining and upbeat way to spend the commute home. Howie has a great comic personna and doesn't take himself too seriously.

I can honestly say that out of a very, very small handful of things I miss about Massachusetts, listening to Howie Carr is near the top of the list.

This just in...

Chevy Chase's career is still dead.

Remember back when Gary Condit had his problems and the media went out of its way to avoid saying he was a Democrat? There was some infobabe, probably Katie Couric but I'm not 100% sure, who actually started referring to Condit as a "conservative" congressman from California!

With that in mind, I always assume that if an MSM doesn't mention the party affiliation of a wrongdoer in a political story, it's a safe bet they are a Rat.

"I have but one sentiment now. That is we have a Government, and laws and a flag and they must all be sustained. There are but two parties now, Traitors & Patriots and I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter."

- U.S. Grant, 1861

It says as much now as it did back then.

Don't forget the most famous product of French Strategists: The Vaunted Maginot Line.

Oh no. I ain't checking into any "camp" with a German name!

Seriously though, that's great idea for a blog. I'll be sure to send a link to my friends on all sides of the political spectrum.

"I don't understand how they haven't yet collapsed economically under those circumstances."

I suspect a lot of it has to do with the miniscule percentage of their GDP that they have spent on defense while living under our protective umbrella. That has given them a lot of money to pi$$ away on useless socialist programs over the years. Problem is that the inevitable has happened, and their systems are going bankrupt. It's just taken a bit longer than it would have if they had also been spending significant amounts of money on their armed forces all this time.

"...thanks to the now infamous 'information superhighway.'"

I wonder if the author is sorry that he voted for Gore, seeing as how the latter invented the internet?

The funny thing about this is that these self-important Democrats seem to think that their boycotting the show would somehow hurt the ratings.

Is there really anyone out there sitting down with the TV remote thinking to themselves, "Well, it's time to watch Cavuto...oh wait a minute- there aren't any liberal political hack talking heads on that show anymore, so there's no sense in watching."

"...500 more Americans killed in Iraq and 13,300 additional jobs lost in the state, the presidential race is back to where it was seven months ago."

You've gotta love this little bit of "journalistic objectivity." With that opening, the author of the piece seems to be lamenting "How is it that Kerry doesn't have a big lead?" instead of just reporting the results of the poll. I wonder if this appeared on the opinion page or as a news story.

I moved away from Mass. about a year ago. The other day, my wife and I were reflecting on the things we missed about the place. Howie Carr was the top item on my very, very short list.

I have to say that even in light of all of the bias we've seen from CBS in the past, the nakedly partisan slant of this piece shocked me a little bit. It's like they aren't even trying anymore to hide the fact that they are the communications arm of the DNC.

LOL!

The older I get, the more I realize there really is a Blazing Saddles reference to suit every occasion.

"Have mercy on those of us who live in Senatorless New York. New York City has more die hard conservatives than many states have people-- we're just outnumbered."

Great point. There are a lot of conservatives in the Empire State. We can't help it if we're outnumbered.

I would also point out, as an Upstate New Yorker, that without NYC, New York State would be a significant battleground state, if not one that would consistently lean Republican. I don't think that the Conservative cause is helped by painting everyone here with a broad brush and insulting everyone in the state.

And by the way, the comment on this thread about nuking NYC, San Francisco et. al. is one of the most reprehensible things I've ever read. How is that cavalier attitude toward massive civilian casualties among people one doesn't agree with any different than Al Qaeda's philosophy?

I have a simple theory about Kerry's slippage in what should be safe blue states for him, even while he continues to poll fairly even with Bush in battleground states:

He's doing opkay in the battleground states because that's where he's spending all his time and ad money. Meanwhile, his base was never crazy about him to begin with, and he's not at all a charismatic figure, so it's hard for him to maintain his appeal in a state like Conn. or Hawaii that isn't getting his message crammed down its collective throat on the airwaves or news coverage of local rallies every day. Out of sight, out of mind.

Basically, Kerry has put so many of his eggs in the basket of a few swing states, that he's losing his base.