Politically, it's not necessarily bad cause, at least around here, all the local free papers are way to the left of the major dailies.
Joanna
Steven L. Robinson wrote:
>Circulation Plunges at Major Newspapers
>
>By Katharine Q. Seelye
>New York Times
>Published: October 30, 2006
>
>Circulation at the nation's largest newspapers plunged over the last six
>months, according to figures released today. The decline, one of the
>steepest on record, adds to the woes of a mature industry beset by layoffs
>and the possible sale of some of its flagships.
>
>Overall, average daily circulation for 770 newspapers was 2.8 percent lower
>in the six-month period ending Sept. 30 than in the comparable period last
>year, the Audit Bureau of Circulations reported. Circulation for 619 Sunday
>papers fell by 3.4 percent.
>
>But some papers fared much worse. The Los Angeles Times lost 8 percent of
>its daily circulation, and 6 percent on Sunday. The Boston Globe, owned by
>The New York Times Company, lost 6.7 percent of its daily circulation and
>almost 10 percent on Sunday.
>
>The New York Times, one of the few major papers whose circulation held
>steady over the last few reporting periods, did not emerge unscathed this
>time: its daily and Sunday circulation each fell 3.5 percent. The Washington
>Post suffered similar declines.
>
>The Wall Street Journal's new Weekend Edition, just over a year old, lost
>6.7 of its circulation from a year ago.
>
>Both The Los Angeles Times and The Boston Globe have been in the news lately
>as potential owners expressed interest in buying them. The Los Angeles paper
>is owned by the Tribune Company, which is entertaining offers from private
>equity firms to sell some of its properties, or perhaps even the whole
>company. Jack Welch, the former president of General Electric, has expressed
>interest in buying The Globe. [This New York Times fails to note the purge
>going on at the L.A. Times, a purge which removed the bylines of Robert
>Scheer, among others, from the papers. SR]
>
>The Philadelphia Inquirer, which changed hands earlier this year and where
>the new owner is in the middle of difficult contract negotiations with the
>paper's unions, lost 7.6 percent of its daily circulation and 4.5 percent on
>Sunday.
>
>Newspaper circulation has been in a long, slow decline for decades. But the
>pace of loss seems accelerated now, as the industry tries to adjust to the
>steady migration of readers and advertisers to the Internet.
>
>Newspaper executives attribute some of the latest losses to intentional
>cutbacks in the number of copies that are paid for in bulk by third parties,
>for example to be distributed to hotel guests. These count as paid
>circulation but are of less interest to advertisers than copies paid for
>directly by readers.
>
>Though the industry has felt consecutive declines over the last five years,
>the Newspaper Association of America said that the figures for the latest
>period were "the largest variance year over year" of which it was aware.
>
>Still, the association said, when newspaper Web sites are taken into
>account, the number of readers its members reach is up very sharply.
>Revenues from Web sites are rising quickly as well, but they account for
>only a small portion of overall revenues, and it could be decades before
>Internet revenues exceed those from the printed editions of major
>newspapers.
>
>One of the few large papers to substantially increase its circulation in the
>latest report was The New York Post, which managed to squeak past its rival,
>The Daily News, by about 10,000 copies, and trumpeted the news today on a
>giant billboard in Times Square.
>
>In fact, both New York tabloids reported increases in circulation, with the
>Post up by 5.13 percent and the Daily News by 1 percent.
>
>Col Allan, editor of The Post, said his paper was doing well because it has
>a better sense of what readers want and a sense of humor. He said the Post's
>circulation figures were firmer than those of other papers in New York
>because it sells fewer copies in bulk to third-party sponsors.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/business/media/31papercnd.html?_r=1&hp&ex=
>1162270800&en=26e951c83654bf69&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin
>
>This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
>http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>