Let's face the facts; newspapers are in trouble. Every morning, for a dwindling group of Americans, a newspaper blows its dying breath in their face. You and I know what the problem is, but when it comes to listening to the vast majority of traditional Americans, journalists are as deaf as politicians. So rather than following my previous advice, ("Why don't you get rid of the bias, the America-hating columnists, the socialist editorials, and the reporters pushing a gay/lesbian/transgendered/illegal alien/pro-abortion/anti-God/anti-gun agenda?") the newspapers have decided instead to redefine the number of readers they have.
Did you go to the paper's website just to read an asinine editorial that you heard about? You're now a "paying customer". Forget for the moment that you would never patronize the advertisers on that site, in fact you're more likely to boycott them. Leave a newspaper on a park bench? Hey, there were probably two or three more "paying customers" to count.
And these are the same people who are charged with protecting our elections.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Pointlessly redefining circulation
June 28, 2007 - 00:59 ET by nkviking75Mithridate, I have to wonder what the point of this redefinition of terms is. Newspapers make most of their money by selling advertising. It makes no sense to base rates on internet readers who will not see most of the ads that appear in the print editions, and who probably wouldn't patronize those local stores in any case.
Some radio stations stream their audio, and of those, many don't let their local ads onto the stream unless the advertisers pay for the privilege. Most local advertisers are not going to pay to have their ads heard by customers who live far away and are unlikely to ever darken their doors.
It's just more dishonesty from the newspaper industry.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.