geokstr:
This would be my (unsupported) assertion as to why the old-line media of all types, newpapers (except the WSJ), newsmagazines, the broadcast news (except Fox) and even the cable stations (except Fox), are showing major declines in reader/viewership. Note that only the media that lean more to the right are still showing growth, while every one of those that tilt left are losing ground. Mere coincidence?SirCastro, it’s not that newspapers (and all other media) that disagree with A. Zarkov are declining simply because they disagree with him, it’s that until the rise of Fox, talk radio, and the internet, tens of millions of people with the philosophical leaning of A. Zarkov (and myself), had nowhere else to go for news except the media that have tilted left since at least the 1950’s. We had no choice but to watch/read ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS, LAT, NYT, WaPo, Time, NewSpeak, etc in order to get any news at all.I’ll wager that surveys by the old time media will show that their readers/viewers have been tilting more and more left over time. I think that is not because the number of leftists has been increasing, but that the right has found there are finally other sources of news that they think are more reliable and trustworthy because they are closer to their own way of thinking. So the old media are in decline because they’ve lost us as subscribers/viewers, now that we actually have a choice.Apparently it was OK with the left, and is in fact the reason they think that the media is not biased, when it almost always agreed with them. How could they be biased, right?This was and still is a center-right country, confirmed by annual objective surveys. But I’m sure it’s just another mere coincidence that the Obama administration and the Dems are looking for side and backdoor methods to impose the “Fairness Doctrine” without calling it that only where it can squelch Fox, talk radio and right-leaning internet blogs. Then we’d have no choice but to go back to being automatons who follow the leftist media.Or not. Open rebellion might be another option.

Rebellion against media? That movie Airheads comes to mind as a template.

Sarcastro says:
A. Zarkov makes a strong point. Newspapers are failing because they do not agree with A. Zarkov. Until this is remedied, the failures will continue.

This would be my (unsupported) assertion as to why the old-line media of all types, newpapers (except the WSJ), newsmagazines, the broadcast news (except Fox) and even the cable stations (except Fox), are showing major declines in reader/viewership.

Note that only the media that lean more to the right are still showing growth, while every one of those that tilt left are losing ground. Mere coincidence?

SirCastro, it’s not that newspapers (and all other media) that disagree with A. Zarkov are declining simply because they disagree with him, it’s that until the rise of Fox, talk radio, and the internet, tens of millions of people with the philosophical leaning of A. Zarkov (and myself), had nowhere else to go for news except the media that have tilted left since at least the 1950′s. We had no choice but to watch/read ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS, LAT, NYT, WaPo, Time, NewSpeak, etc in order to get any news at all.

I’ll wager that surveys by the old time media will show that their readers/viewers have been tilting more and more left over time. I think that is not because the number of leftists has been increasing, but that the right has found there are finally other sources of news that they think are more reliable and trustworthy because they are closer to their own way of thinking. So the old media are in decline because they’ve lost us as subscribers/viewers, now that we actually have a choice.

Apparently it was OK with the left, and is in fact the reason they think that the media is not biased, when it almost always agreed with them. How could they be biased, right?

This was and still is a center-right country, confirmed by annual objective surveys. But I’m sure it’s just another mere coincidence that the Obama administration and the Dems are looking for side and backdoor methods to impose the “Fairness Doctrine” without calling it that only where it can squelch Fox, talk radio and right-leaning internet blogs. Then we’d have no choice but to go back to being automatons who follow the leftist media.

Or not. Open rebellion might be another option.

Now I guess Obama will want to tax me so he can give money to a newspaper that I and a whole lot of other people don’t want to read. But that’s the way socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.

yankee says:
Most of the reason newspapers are struggling has to do with declining revenue from classified ads, because craigslist is offering the same service for free. Circulation is down but it’s decidedly secondary.

Please provide a link to some support for this conclusion, that the decline in classified ad revenue, as opposed to general advertising revenue, is the major cause for the decline in total revenue.

After clicking on the link, I think you have the positions reversed on the last issue. It appears from the posting that 69% of the Left agree in contrast to only 16% of the Right.

[DK: Thanks. I fixed it.]

Many people feel that the media can lead people in different ideological directions. We are Smith College students in a Senior Political Psychology Seminar and we want to invite you to take our survey. We are investigating the relationship between media coverage and political information. If you take our short, confidential survey you can choose to be entered into a raffle for a $50 gift certificate to Amazon.com. If you are interested, follow this link to Surveymonkey.com

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=T4JLkCcNbd7TRexboclKxA_3d_3d

mjohns2: If newspapers are struggling because people aren’t buying them, surely the country would be better off without them. People who want news will get it from other sources.

Most of the reason newspapers are struggling has to do with declining revenue from classified ads, because craigslist is offering the same service for free. Circulation is down but it’s decidedly secondary.

Also, a lot of those “other sources” tend to be parasitic off newspaper reporting. Bloggers rarely do original reporting, they just link to the newspapers who do. The decline of newspapers mostly leaves original reporting in the hands of TV news, which has lower quality and depth than your better newspapers like the WSJ and the NYT.

It seems the WSJ will survive, though. Unlike every other news source they’ve succeeded in putting up a paywall by convincing businesses that it’s worth paying for access.

I think NPR and PBS already provide enough of a “public option” in this area.

If newspapers are struggling because people aren’t buying them, surely the country would be better off without them. People who want news will get it from other sources.

On the other hand, if newspapers are struggling because people are reading them on the Internet rather than buying the paper version, then the other sources and the paper sources are actually the same source.

If newspapers are struggling because people aren’t buying them, surely the country would be better off without them. People who want news will get it from other sources.

Perhaps the tax breaks will be for people who want to support the papers. They could get a deduction for their contribution.