Ken Shepherd of NewsBusters posted Tuesday on Editor and Publisher's March 11 article listing the four-year circulation changes at the nation's top 20 newspapers, concentrating on the 20% loss at the Los Angeles Times during that period.
What's also compelling is that the Top 20 really has three winners and 17 losers during that four-year time frame, as the chart that follows demonstrates:
Though its print circulation has declined slightly, I consider the Wall Street Journal a winner because it has more than made up for its small loss in print circulation with hundreds of thousands of new paid online-only subscribers. In fact, the WSJ had 931,000 online subscribers in Spring of 2007, according to Wikipedia (in turn supported by this May 2007 Journal column). I'm not able to determine how many of them are online only, but if only 9% them are, the Journal has had a net gain in its paid subscriber base.
What do the three winners -- USA Today, the Journal, and the New York Post -- have in common? Paraphrasing esteemed economist Walter Williams (example here), if you said "Those papers are reasonably fair and balanced," go to the head of the class.
Although readers may disagree in a couple of instances, it's safe to say that "fair and balanced" is not the first thing that comes to mind at the mention of any of the other 15 -- or for that matter, the two publications (Dallas Morning News and Newsday) whose 2003 figures weren't used by E&P because of those publications' involvement in that year's circulation-padding scandal.
I believe that a large portion of the reason why the 15 publications listed above collectively lost 1 in 8 print subscribers during the four years shown is that they have long since stopped playing the news straight, and have been caught frequently in the act of not playing it straight. It has happened enough times, and with little if any signs of change or improvement, that many readers have simply said, "Who needs 'em?"
What's more, but not shown above -- If you compare the circ losses at the 15 losers during the past four years to their losses during the last 2-1/2 years -- losses that were detailed by yours truly last fall (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog) -- you'll find that five of them (New York Times, New York Daily News, Washington Post, Arizona Republic, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution) had bigger losses during the last 2-1/2 years than they did during the entire four years. This means that these papers actually increased their circulation during the first 18 months of the four-year period before falling even more steeply that it would appear from the above chart.
So being fair and balanced pays, while not being so is expensive. When will the other 17 publications catch on to this concept?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
propaganda
March 15, 2008 - 00:38 ET by m1xramWhat can we learn from this? It can not be that liberals don't read, which we know isn't true. It must be that people willing to pay for print news have no use for propaganda.
m1xram
I don't know of anyone that
March 15, 2008 - 04:41 ET by riff_raffI don't know of anyone that actually pays for USA Today. As far as I know, their entire circulation consists of free copies in hotel rooms and airports. Maybe libs like it because the articles are short, use lots of monosyllabic words (...Bush is bad...) and have lots of multi-colored pictures. "Ooooo...looky....colors pretty...."
As for the WSJ, it costs about $100/yr for a subscription, its articles are long and require you to think, and there are no color pictures.
Well, given they all are
March 15, 2008 - 10:39 ET by dscottWell, given they all are experiencing annual losses, it's not hard to see why their group think regarding the economy being bad. Once again, liberals have cause and effect disconnected, the reality is their product is bad and as a result the customer is not buying, their fantasy is it's the economy is bad and as a result the customer is not buying. It's easy to blame Bush for the economy as to why the customer is not buying when in fact your product sucks, is a matter of pride. Reality has a rude habit of popping fantasy bubble. Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
What! Us worry?
March 15, 2008 - 10:48 ET by pocomoco“…and with little if any signs of change or improvement, that many readers have simply said, "Who needs 'em?"
This proves my thesis about liberals.
They are incapable of logical thought and common sense and, I can now add, have a predilection toward self-destruction.
We might be dinosaurs
March 15, 2008 - 15:12 ET by anneftxAlthough I only subscribe to WSJ on line and generally check NYT on
line late in the day once or twice a week to find out what broadcast
networks will be parroting in the evening news, I rarely read USA Daily
except when I'm traveling. Still, there's nothing quite like have
hard copy in hand so that I can pause and 'rewind,' find logical
fallacies and statistical misinterpretation (plus typos which happen to
drive me slightly mad).
Abt 1 x/month, I pick up a Sunday
edition of NYT & latest WSJ. I simply cannot find all the
articles that might be of interest on line. Thus, I think I may
be a dinosaur -- who needs physical publication in hand to read, ponder
and think.
I believe that the general public is smart enough to
ignore biased media. Witness that lack of concern about
global warming. This is especially true of older folx who've
experienced varying weather throughout their lives.
I deeply wish
I could have a civil conversation with a die-hard liberal. There
is merit in some of their ideas -- or at least room to discuss and
negotiate. Unfortunately, I find them to be 'Kool-Aid' drinkers,
honing to some odd party line, taking various Big Lie's as the ultimate
truth and committed to the concept that mankind is evil -- while
thinking they know what is best for the 'great unwashed.'
In addition, it often seems to me that so-called liberals are liberal
only when it comes to themselves. Otherwise, they prefer to be
Nannys or lifestyle police. They rarely seem thoughtful -- not
even a short pause before firing back. I prefer to extend the
courtesy of listening and thinking before I speak.
Perhaps
the MSM has forgotten about thinking before they speak/write.
Intelligent readers easily recognize this and thus eschew these news
sources.
nothing to do with anti liberalism
March 15, 2008 - 15:33 ET by shawn228The reason for the decline in newspaper is simply information can be had online within seconds. IE as soon as the Spitzer story came out, there were linked articles in Newsbusters within hours.
Any article that is in a Newspaper is old news. As far as the ones that have made a profit. I might agree with the New York Post, but it increased circulation a mere 2.3 percent. WS journal lost viewers no matter how it is sugar coated.
I don't ever remember Newsbusters considering USA today being fair and balanced referenced here, here and here, There is so much information available today. I wonder if over 100 thousand people are upset in San Francisco, because they are so pro liberal?
I don't think so
March 17, 2008 - 04:20 ET by Tom BlumerWS journal lost viewers no matter how it is sugar coated.
Of the WSJ's roughly 900,000 online subscribers, probably a few hundred thousand don't get the print edition, but are paying $99 a year, which is probably about the same as the WSJ's print edition generates in net subscription revenues after printing and distribution costs. So, I don't know about 4 years ago, but WSJ's paid subscribership is probably 10%-15% ahead of where it was 10 years ago.
New owner Murdoch seems to have designs on getting the Journal into general news and to go after the NY Times's and USAT's national audiences. Should be fun times.
USAT is way less than perfect on fair and balanced (you missed this one by yours truly), but usually they seem to at least try to be fair -- something the NYT, WaPo, and LAT often could care less about.
Tom
March 17, 2008 - 10:34 ET by shawn228IMO the WSJ still lost actual readers, but if you choose to interpret that they actually gained viewers that is your POV. The WSJ is a different creature than the others anyway, they focus more on business than tabloid stories.
I have been to many hotels across the USA and it seems the "complimentory paper" that is give out has always been USA today. Maybe hotels have something to do with their circution, but that is pure speculation on my part.
That being said, what do you think of my theory that online news that is more current is the reason for the decline in newspapers?
America's sweetheart does gangsta rap
I agree
March 17, 2008 - 21:53 ET by Tom Blumer... that it's a factor, but I think media bias has hastened the circulation declines, maybe at a rate twice as fast as might have occurred if Old Media played it straight.
Well Shawn, personally I
March 18, 2008 - 10:02 ET by dscottWell Shawn, personally I hope they all just keep thinking that way, it's called having an edge or differentiation from your competition. The NYT, Globe and AJC will be among the first to be bought out or go bankrupt in the next few years precisely because they don't have the edge. Propaganda is trailing edge stuff, not leading edge. As long as they overtly play the leftist line, they will remain on the trailing edge of the news industry. FNC, WSJ and New York Post have the edge and recognized differentiation and thus will grab up more of the leftovers as soon as the herd thins out a little. The NYT lost it's captive audience to the Post when it crossed the line firmly into propaganda territory.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
English
March 15, 2008 - 22:12 ET by Jerry MackOne of the reasons for the decline of the LAT is the decreasing amount of people that can read ENGLISH.