Newspaper Circulation Continues to Fall

San Francisco Chronicle hardest hit. Among many others.

The decline in U.S. newspaper circulation is accelerating as the industry struggles with defections to the Internet and tumbling ad revenue.

Figures released Monday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations show that average daily circulation dropped 10.6 percent in the April-September period from the same six-month span in 2008. That was greater than the 7.1 percent decline in the October 2008-March 2009 period and the 4.6 percent drop in the April-September period of 2008.

Sunday circulation fell 7.5 percent in the latest six-month span.

As expected, The Wall Street Journal has surpassed USA Today as the top-selling newspaper in the United States. The Journal's average Monday-Friday circulation edged up 0.6 percent to 2.02 million -- making it the only daily newspaper in the top 25 to see an increase.

USA Today saw its worst decline ever, dropping more than 17 percent to 1.90 million. The newspaper has blamed reductions in travel for much of the circulation shortfall, because many of its single-copy sales come in airports and hotels.

The New York Times stayed in third place at 927,851, down 7.3 percent from the same period of 2008.

Newspaper sales have been declining since the early 1990s, but the drop has accelerated in recent years. Part of this is because newspapers stopped serving harder-to-reach areas and limited circulation to their core regions.

In many cases, people simply aren't buying print copies as much as they used to, given the abundance of free news on the Internet, often from the newspapers themselves. This has prompted newspapers to consider charging fees for Web access, but it could prove difficult to persuade people to pay for something they are used to getting for free.

Newsday, a Long Island daily, said last week it plans to start charging people who don't subscribe to its print edition $5 a week for access to its Web site. Newsday's circulation dropped 5.4 percent in the latest reporting period, to 357,124.

Of the top 25 dailies, the San Francisco Chronicle saw the worst circulation decline, falling 25.8 percent to 251,782. The Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey, and The Dallas Morning News both fell 22.2 percent.

All of these, of course, are rather liberal papers. While it's trues advertising revenue has shrunk, the media just never acknowledges people are abandoning paper because of their bias and won't be coming back.

Elevating the Debate: Pelosi and Hoyer Call Protests Un-American

I'm not sure who wrote this USA Today op-ed piece for Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, but by the end of the day expect them to clarify "their" statements, because this one is going to blow up in their faces. Just breathtaking arrogance and smug sanctimony wrapped in lies and deceit.

However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion.

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.
...
This month, despite the disruptions, members of Congress will listen to their constituents back home and explain reform legislation. We are confident that our principles of affordable, quality health care will stand up to any and all critics.

Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change — America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal.

First of all, Americans are not in support of ramming this legislation down our throats and in fact a mere 25% agree with Pelosi's view that insurance companies are to blame for high costs. Pelosi and Hoyer may also want to clue themselves in to the fact their approval rating stands at a rock-bottom 14%, and this snide condescension sure won't help.

Furthermore, who is it that's waging an ugly campaign? It sure isn't the right.

Recall several weeks ago when Team Obama got their panties ina knot after Senator Jim DeMint called healthcare Obama's Waterloo.

Well today Pelosi and Hoyer will be "celebrating" their own Waterloo, and it's not going to be pretty.

Calling honest debate un-American is about as low as it gets. Democrats piss and moan when their patriotism is questioned, so they better be prepared for massive blowback for calling citizens un-American.

This will not stand.

Used to be dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Apparently not in Nancy Pelosi's America.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls the "Tea Party" protesters Nazis, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman --forgetting the events above -- claims that left-leaning groups never engaged in disruptive tactics against Social Security reform, and various other administration-supporting pundits are trying to spin the whole thing as a deadly move toward "mob rule" and – somewhat contradictorily -- as a phony "astroturf" movement.

Remember: When lefties do it, it's called "community organizing." When conservatives and libertarians do it, it's "astroturf."

But some people are noticing the truth. As Mickey Kaus notes, "If an 'astroturfing' campaign gets real people to show up at events stating their real views, isn't it ... community organizing?" Why yes, yes it is.

Jim Hoft, on the front lines in St. Louis, weighs in and a well-earned Fisking is at Founding Bloggers.

Stange, but just the other day Pelosi claimed she'd be carefully listening to the people. What happened, Nancy?

I guess these two out-of-touch Democrats have forgotten what one of their own had to say about the right to debate and disagree.

Newspaper Circulation Crumbles

Sure, people are cutting back on non-essential purposes during a bad economy, but I suspect even if were were enjoying a robust economy many of these newspapers would still be losing readers.

But this is as bad as it gets. Check that. It'll probably get worse.

The Audit Bureau of Circulations released this morning the spring figures for the six months ending March 31, 2009, showing that the largest metros continue to shed daily and Sunday circulation -- now at a record rate.

According to ABC, for 395 newspapers reporting this spring, daily circulation fell 7% to 34,439,713 copies, compared with the same March period in 2008. On Sunday, for 557 newspapers, circulation was down 5.3% to 42,082,707. These averages do not include 84 newspapers with circulations below 50,000 due to a change in publishing frequency.

The percent comparisons are for the same period ending in March 2008. (All daily averages are for Monday through Friday.)

Daily circulation at The New York Times dropped 3.5% to 1,039,031. The Times' Sunday circ was down 1.7% to 1,451,233.

The Washington Post lost 1.6% of its daily circ to 665,383 and 2.3% to 868,965.

USA Today, as reported earlier this month, lost 7.4% of its daily circulation to 2,113,725 due to a decline in hotel copies.

Daily circulation at The Wall Street Journal was up a fraction 0.6% to 2,082,189, but this was certainly the exception, not the rule.

Daily circulation at The Boston Globe skidded 13.6% to 302,638 copies. Sunday decreased 11.2% to 466,665.

New York's Daily News was off 14%, but rival New York Post lost even more, at minus 20%. The Star-Ledger of Newark shed over 16%. Newsday, by comparison, lost 3%*.

Daily circulation at The Miami Herald fell 15.8% to 202,122. Sunday is down 13.1% to 270,166.

San Francisco Chronicle shed 15.7% of daily copies to 312,118. Sunday fell 16.5% to 312,118.

Tribune Co. papers rolled out highly touted redesigns in this period, but lost readers. The Chicago Tribune lost 7.4% of its daily circulation to 501,202 and 4.5% on Sunday to 858,256 copies. Circulation plunged at the Los Angeles Times at 6.5% of its daily circulation (Monday through Friday) to 723,181 copies. Sunday was down 7.4% to 1,019,388.

The Philadelphia Inquirer lost 13.7% of its daily circulation to 288,298. Sunday was hit just as hard, down 12% to 550,400. Daily circulation at its sister publication the Daily News fell 7.6% to 99,103. (At the end of March the Inquirer started distributing the Daily News within its pages. The change does not affect the circulation for this period.)

Daily circulation at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution plummeted almost 20% to 261,828. Sunday decreased 7% to 462,011.

The top 25 in circulation are listed here.

These plummeting figures can't be strictly blamed on newspapers losing readers due to a liberal slant, especially when the one paper you could say that has a conservative op-ed slant, the New York Post, dropped 20%. Since the Post is owned by News Corp. (as is the WSJ), I'd expect them to weather this. However, some of these newspapers are hemorrhaging so may readers and losing ad revenue at record rates they just may not survive with a print model. Moving strictly online is already being done with some large dailies and that may be the only avenue of survival at this point.

Linked at Instapundit. Thanks!

Media Meltdown Continues: Gannett/USA Today to Furlough Workers

As reported by another outfit in freefall, the New York Times. How fitting.

The Gannett Company, the nation’s largest newspaper publisher, said on Wednesday that it would force thousands of its employees to take a week off without pay in an effort to avoid layoffs.

Gannett, which owns 85 daily newspapers across the United States including its flagship USA Today, said it could not say exactly how many people would be required to take time off, or how much money the company would save. But it said it would require unpaid leave for most of its 31,000 employees in this country.

Also on Wednesday, USA Today notified its staff of a one-year pay freeze for all employees.

“Most of our U.S. employees — including myself and all other top executives — will be furloughed for the equivalent of one week in the first quarter,” Craig A. Dubow, the chairman, president and chief executive, wrote in a memorandum to employees.

“We sincerely hope this minimizes the need for any layoffs going forward,” he added.

The company cannot impose the measure unilaterally on employees covered by a union contract, but Mr. Dubow said Gannett was asking unions to participate voluntarily. Tara Connell, a company spokeswoman, said about 12 percent of Gannett’s domestic employees were unionized.

With the newspaper industry in increasingly dire financial straits, Gannett’s mandatory week off takes its place in a growing list of grave moves like widespread layoffs, the newspapers in Detroit halting home delivery four days of the week, the bankruptcy filing of the Tribune Company and warnings from the owners of The Rocky Mountain News and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer that those papers could shut down.

Maybe they can start today, although the thought of them skipping a week of slobbering over the Obama inaugural probably never entered their minds.

My advice to most of them is to begin seeking a new career path. Your days are numbered.

Poll Shock: McCain Up 10 Among Likely Voters

Who's panicking more today? New England Patriot fans or Democrats?

It may be a tossup.

The Patriots at least will be playing past the first week of November, by which time Barack Obama may be a historical footnote.

In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples.

Assorted reaction here.

More Fuzzy Math Fed to the Masses

This is from an article over at the USA Today paper. It is an article about service members suffering from PTSD or other mental illnesses. The article puts the number at 300,000 and they say it represents 1 in 5 soldiers. They then go on to say an equal number are suffering from some sort of traumatic brain injury making a total of over 600,000 suffering some sort of injury or illness.

Now take a step back people and think about this. Let's start with some baseline numbers. First, the average Army strength deployed to the theater of operations, meaning Afghanistan and Iraq, 144,400 and for the Marines it is 27,000. That is the average number of troops deployed, including reserves based on DoD data.

Now if you take that number times five it equals 722,000 for the Army and 135,000 for the Marines for a grand total of 857,000 troops that have been deployed. That is assuming that each time a rotation occurred it would be fresh soldiers who had never been deployed which we know isn't true. So according to the number cited in the article that reaches almost 35% of all troops, yet the survey puts it at 18.5% for PTSD and 19% for head trauma which together equals 37.5%.

The total strength of the Army right now is around 440,000. So according to this survey three-quarters of those serving in the Army have some sort of PTSD or brain injury?

Let's look at the methodology employed here to arrive at these figures by the Rand group.

The Rand survey done from August through January, put the percentage of PTSD and depression at 18.5% and then calculated about 300,000 were suffering those problems at that time because Pentagon data shows over 1.6 million military personnel have deployed to the conflicts since the war in Afghanistan began in 2001.

Now look at that. They claim 600K suffer some sort of injury or illness and 1.6M have been deployed. Does that add up to almost 60% in anybody else;s book?

I didn't include Navy and Air Force in my numbers deliberately because for the most part they are not involved in the day to day operations which would expose them to brain injuries or some of the more horrific scenes witnessed by the ground forces.
Let me make this clear right now, I am not trying to diminish the issue of PTSD or TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury), I just want it to be cast in the proper light. There is no denying that anybody that goes to war is going to experience PTSD in some form, shape, or fashion just like first responders often experience it. You can not go into that environment and not come out affected, but with that being said, to inflate the numbers like this to score some sort points is despicable.

Now regarding my beef with the Rand report, using the figure of 1.6 military personnel who have been deployed is to ignore those have done multiple tours and those who were not exposed to dangerous situations.

Maybe I am wrong and the number is that high, but I tend to believe that the number is closer to about 100 - 150,000, or a quarter of the number cited by Rand.

The Department of Veterans Affairs said this month that its records show about 120,000 who served in the two wars and are no longer in the military have been diagnosed with mental health problems. Of those, approximately 60,000 are suffering from PTSD, the VA said.

The VA handles folks who have separated, not active duty, and they show 60,000 suffering PTSD.

Don't make the service members out to be victims. Some who suffer PTSD manage to get over it, and in fact I would say the large majority of them do. Traumatic Brain Injury, due to the nature of the weapons being employed is a greater concern and something that can only be handled medically.

There is no need to go around and hype numbers which just feed on the ignorance of the 99% of people in this country who have never served and therefore don't have a clue about the stresses placed on the military. I watch the folks on reality shows who after two weeks away from their family are reduced to quivering bowls of jello and I can't help but wonder how they would hold up to year long deployments. Maybe contestants on Survivor need to be examined for PTSD?

I just want to make it clear to those who are going to come over here and read this and try to say what an uncaring, despicable person I am because I dare to question a study on this issue, I understand that these mental and medical issues are real, I am not trying to deny that they need to be addressed with just as much vigor as we use against our physical enemies, but I don't want to fall into the trap of viewing each and every person who wears the uniform as being a victim.

I wonder if they did a similar survey on football players?

USA Today's latest attempt at keeping US casualties in the news

First off the headline on the article got my dander up.

Dozens of cities spared war dead

Then I started reading the article. See if you can catch the recurring, fraudulent claim.

Analysts offer two explanations for why such cities could have avoided military losses:

And those two reasons are:

Cities tend to have more viable economies than those places."

Urban residents, accordingly, are less apt to need the economic opportunity offered by military service.

Economic opportunities in the military? I thought there were no economic advantages to joining the military? They are getting their narratives mixed up.

And the other reason?

• In a nation of 300 million, the U.S. military death toll in Iraq is small enough to make chance a factor in which cities lose a son or daughter.

"There's a big random element in this," says William O'Hare, a University of New Hampshire demographer who has studied U.S. deaths in Iraq. "Even in a city of 100,000, you're talking about a fairly small pool of recruit-age people."

You want my take on this? Most larger urban areas tend to also be more liberal. It is why Democrats count heavily on the large cities in states and ignore anybody outside of the big metropolitan area.

They can win a state merely by winning enough of the votes in the major city. Since metro areas are liberal they also tend to be more anti military. Fewer people join the military, per capita, from big cities because quite frankly they lack the intestinal fortitude and moral courage of their more rural brethren. That is a fancy way of saying they are sissies.

Throw your faux economic reasons out the window and that really intellectual argument based on dumb luck with it.

At least they admit the death toll has been small.

What Does Media Bias Smell Like?

How long until someone has an allergic reaction and sues USA Today?

Joint Promotion Adds Stickers to Sweet Smell of Marketing

A PROMOTION scheduled to begin today may prompt hotel guests to exclaim, with apologies to “Apocalypse Now,” that they love the smell of advertising in the morning.

Guests at Omni luxury hotels will find small scented stickers on the front pages of their free copies of USA Today. A blackberry aroma will suggest that the guests start the day at their hotels with a cup of Starbucks coffee “paired with a fresh muffin.” The promotion, to be tested for at least six months, is being sponsored by Omni Hotels and Starbucks Coffee.

It is one of two ideas being explored by the Gannett Company, the parent of USA Today, in the increasingly popular realm of scented advertising. The other concept Gannett is testing is to let marketers add scents to the ads they run in the pages of USA Today. Another national newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, owned by Dow Jones & Company, is also looking into scenting its ad pages.

Seeing Maureen Dowd at the top of the link above reminds me of the faint odor of cheap scotch and mindless prose.