Slashdot Mirror

Circulation continues to fall at about 2.5% year-to-year for dailies and 3.3% for Sunday editions.1 The total reach of newspaper organizations including their online and niche products is growing, but this does not translate readily into sustaining advertising revenue...
What is true all over is that margins have begun to decline quickly and that high fixed costs from the era of print dominance are not sustainable. That puts some papers facing the possibility of going into the red, and sales of extraneous business units or buildings and land have become commonplace.

Newspapers in 2008

Why don't you count how many radio stations are now owned by the same large corporation across the US? There used to be tighter restrictions on how many radio and television stations a single company could own, as well as how many newspapers a company could own in a single market. Do your research before you spout such krap.

WTF does an increased number of "national news TV outlets" have do with the who controls the content of media. Take a journalism class sometime nitwit. The point is, media consolidation is bad not only for smaller markets, but the general reliability of news and information from the media. Also, the percentage of people getting their news from television shrinks every year. This is media were talking about, in all its forms. As an example: Study Shows FCC Media Ownership Rule Changes Would Harm Local Florida Communities

I don't know about RFA rallies, but the article about CC i read in Harper's painted a scary picture not because they own X (1,207) stations. It was scary because they advertise those stations on their collection of Y billboards and promote shows at Z venues they control.

Clear channel isn't alone in this either. In the recent (Labor day) NYT profile about Les Moonves, he was talking about Vicaom synergy and he said something like -We produce a show, air it on a network we own, and promote it on our billboards.

As long as there are "old people" there will always be newspapers.

Newspaper circulation is in decline. Evening newspapers (popular for closing stock information) have declined the fastest, but the overall trend is not encouraging. Since 1970 the number of us households has approximately doubled, but newspaper circulation has decreased slightly. This coupled with recent drops of 2.6 percent in the last six months paint a bleak picture.

It is naive to say that there will always be newspapers. It is like saying there will always be record players. Digital technology will eventually destroy newspapers. Even if someday they get replaced by high res flexible digital "paper", the traditional model of a printed paper that has to be distributed is doomed. It is simply too expensive.

First, you're making the wrong assumption that rich people are conservative. I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Look at this. Yes, I know it's from Rush Limbaugh, but I won't accept an ad hominem attack on him. An anecdote: in my state, Wyoming, only one county went for Kerry: Teton county, home of Jackson Hole, which is where all the rich, out-of-state people live. Teton county has about 15,000 residents and 20,000 people employed there (because people can't afford to live there, so they have to commute). Next, journalists are liberals, and they decide what to report. I think it should open some eyes when you have ABC saying they need to hold Bush to a higher standard of truth than Kerry, or when you have the Newsweek editor or publisher (I can't remember which) saying that positive coverage of Kerry is worth 15% (later revised downward to 5%). Sorry, but the data don't fit your proposed explanation, so the explanation has to be wrong.

I think it's important to tell the whole truth. The media never mentions when we open schools, when we open hospitals, when we improve infrastructure, or anything else like that. The media is only telling one side of the Iraq story, and it's the side designed to harm American morale. Why don't they start reporting on the good things that are happening over there as well?

The Kerry by 20 in PA came from early numbers, and Karl Rove was even quoted mentioning it. They had Kerry tied in North Carolina. However, when the exit polls vary far from months of previous polling, that's got to be pretty telling.

John McCain is liberal relative to most other republicans; the same is true with Arlen Spector. However, in general, they're centrists. That final remark was food for thought. Next, Bill Clinton raised the top income tax rate from George H.W. Bush. Also, economically speaking, Bill Clinton is a moderate, and Barry Goldwater was a social conservative (and a nutcase in my opinion. 1964 was the last time that Wyoming went Democrat). Goldwater suggested doing nothing with the taxes, Clinton raised them. However, this whole analogy is flawed: you're comparing apples to oranges here. Furthermore, Bush made the income tax system MORE progressive. Crunch the numbers instead of relying on baseless allegations about how Bush is only taking care of the wealthy.

Odd, here I am reading this, while, watching Bill O'Reilly at the same time. O'Reilly just made the comment that blames Rather for poor reporting, but he doesn't think Rather was trying to influence the election. O'Reilly chastises right-wing blogs for turning poor reporting into some sort of left-wing CBS conspiracy.

Of course, one of the reasons that you don't see Fox News being caught in this kind of work is that they simply do not have the size of a news department of a CNN or any of the other networks. Fox does a great job of throwing a few reporters out there and running commentators 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It leaves the investigative reporting to CNN, CBS, ABC, and most other news organizations.

Why? Who knows? Of course, it probably costs CNN alot more money to keep a staff on-site in every major and minor national capital around the world, whereas Fox only has to pay for a few dozen support personnel to sit behind their desk at the company Headquarters.

The Bonus for Fox is that it doesn't have to run the risk of getting the story wrong. It lets the other news organizations dig up the story. Then, it just has the commentators put their own spin on the news, after someone else spends the money to break the story (read this site take a look at the last couple of paragraphs on how Fox uses controlled interviews with paid internal staffers). And, because all it is doing is making commentary, it gets the ratings because commentary is alot more interesting than watching "real news".