 
|
On the same day it launched its “Greater New York” edition, The Wall Street Journal Monday topped the list of the nation’s largest-circulation daily newspapers. The Journal was the only daily among the 25 largest newspapers to gain circulation in the six-month period ended March 31.
USA Today recorded a decrease of 13.58% as it fell below the two million mark to 1,826,622. The San Jose Mercury News exploded into the top 10 list by incorporating the Oakland Tribune and Contra Costa Times as edition of the Mercury News.
1. The Wall Street Journal 2,092,523 +0.5%
2. USA Today 1,826,622 -13.58%
3. New York Times 951,063 -8.47%
4. Los Angeles Times 616,606 -14.74%
5. Washington Post 578,482 -13.06%
6. New York Daily News 535,059 -11.25%
7. New York Post 525,004 -5.94%
8. San Jose Mercury News* 516,701 N/A
(1/1/10 To 3/31/2010)
9. Chicago Tribune 452,145 -9.79%
10. Houston Chronicle 366,578 -13.77%
11. Philadelphia Inquirer** 356,189 N/A
Amazing how this keeps going and going.
I think not. Some little bit, but not nearly enough. The 20th Cent saw news supported by consumer advertising. The model has already greatly changed and will continue along the curve established.
Interesting then that the WSJ did not have consumer advertising. Brokerage Houses perhaps but not kitty litter.
I still line my hamster cage and degrease bacon with the news. Thankfully, my next door neighbor gives me her paper. I wonder if that is a copyright violation?
Over the last few years, distributing news on dead trees had much to with being far lower power, higher resolution and more portable than laptops.
Tablets closing the above gap, multimedia need (video) and younger generation comfortable with screens may be the real beginning of the end for newsprint.
Still, it will be around for a long time for the elderly and most republicans.
Well, WSJ is the only paper who is doing actual reporting as well as charging for content. Still, newspapers are in a state of steady decline that will sadly only stop once the feds take control of them.
#2, Dallas said “Still, it will be around for a long time for the elderly and most republicans.”
Are you saying Republicans are obstinate to change? To quote Abe Simpson, “My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that’s the way I likes it!”
Quite amusing how the only the newspaper owned by Ruppert (Arrgh Matey) Murdock is the one making a profit.
I suppose the next bit of news we will get is that the only TV broadcast news that has a rise in viewership is Fockx.
Not of course due to opinionated (so called) journalists and former readers becoming bored by re-hash stories filling acres of newsprint at high prices is it?
The television news has become similarly boring, what with ‘personalities’ on hugely overblown wages giving it large on items that are of little interest to the public.
We used to have reporters. Great. told us what was going on without the psuedo ‘professionalism’ of journalists – none of whom keep a journal – do they? Indeed bloggers are closer to journalists than the paper scribblers, most of whom are certainly not worth their money. Newspaper are not going out of business because they are dinosaurs, more it is the case that they are being murdered by failure to understand their audience.
Television news likewise. Presenters, these days, look more like models for some product or other what with their bouffant hair, suits fresh off the hanger and Hollywood make up – and that’s only the blokes. I’ve seen blow-up dolls with more personality than the women. What the hell do you want ‘personality for anyway? They are only reading off a prompter. My grandkids can do that and they aren’t yet old enough to work.
Give us some humans please and, by the way, the current crop simply ain’t worth their wages. Ask anyone in the street.
Newspapers are dying because they deserve to. It’s nature’s way. Mutant communicators should leave the gene pool – starting with anyone called Murdoch.
Nothing ever stays the same. Get over it.
New Mexico used to have two real newspapers. One actually received a Pullitzer Prize for an expose’ on the government injecting plutonium into people without their knowledge, starting right after the end of WWII. The one with the Pulitzer went out of business a few years later.
The other is still in business, but mostly prints news from the Associated Press and local crime news. I don’t think actual news is why people buy papers any more.
The WSJ circulation includes over 400,000 online subscriptions. That’s one more reason they are staying relevant.
I wonder how many people that subscribe to the Wall Street Journal actually read it? I know a lot of business schools tell their students to subscribe to it because when I drive through parts of town with college students living there I see unread WSJ issues piled up on their porches.
#4 Sam “Are you saying Republicans are obstinate to change?”
No I think he is just wishing Democrats could read or the WSJ had a page 3 girl.
#4 No, I’m saying most Republicans are generally conservative and by definition are less apt to accept change.
Nothing wrong with that.
Yeah America. We’ll have two newspapers and 3 cable networks, 1 or 2 radio networks, all owned by a tiny handful of families. Socialism? We’ve been a corporate owned nation for over 60 years with a handful of super rich families controlling most of the nation.
From 1980 to 2006 the richest 1% of America tripled their after-tax percentage of our nation’s total income, while the bottom 90% have seen their share drop over 20%. This continues another few decades and we’re back to being a royal kingdom with 2 or 3 super rich families and everyone else a poor peasant (owned by the banks).
#13 is right
We are on track to becoming a royal kingdom with 2 or 3 corporations in league with the government ruling over us.
#12 Dallas,
“Republicans are generally conservative and by definition are less apt to accept change.”
I have heard that definition before, and while I am sure it is how liberals view conservatives, it is not a good definition. While conservatives do hold what would be considered transitional values by today’s standard, there are a lot of things conservatives want to change. As the US continues to blindly follow Europe into whatever socialist dystopia it leads us to, this definition will become more and more inaccurate.
It is sometimes said that liberals by definition (your definition) become conservatives as soon as they get the change they seek. I don’t see that happening. Do you?
While the newspapers’ decline is largely a factor of technology, I believe there is more to it.
The market is saturated with AP stories and liberal opinion on the internet and TV already. It is supply and demand. No one is going to pay for what you can get free online unless it is more convenient. For some people, a newspaper is more convenient and until e-book readers are more widespread, cheaper, and more mature, the newspapers have a shot at surviving. But if they just regurgitate the same basic data you could find a day earlier on twitter, and the same tired opinion (liberal in most cases, conservative in smaller towns) every other paper and website has, they do not offer any added value. They need to take what little they are still making and pay for a small staff of real journalists. Anyone can summarize facts already known. Not anyone can go find new information.
I think this trend may in the end be good for newspapers. Papers that are not willing to invest in real journalism will die. In the end, there will be fewer papers but at least they may be worth reading. Some day, they will probably all be distributed digitally, but that alone will not save them unless they have already changed their content.
One point I forgot – contrast the WSJ with a traditional newspaper. It does offer added value because it does contain new information in many cases, and convenience compared to looking up all of the financial stories separately online.
Also, obviously people are more willing to pay for it if they think it can help them earn money, but I doubt if this is as big of a factor as you might think. The people I know who subscribe to it are interested in financial news – I really doubt if they think it is helping them make money they would not have otherwise made.
Finally, when it comes to opinion, the WSJ is unique. It is generally considered conservative, but is not like other conservative opinion you will read. It is sometimes liberal on social issues, usually grounded in facts, and always unapologetic.
The other newspapers should learn something from the WSJ, even though they have no hope at doing as well as them.
>> aslightlycrankygeek said,
>> The market is saturated with AP stories and liberal opinion on the internet and TV already
If you honestly think the media are liberal, you’ve been totally brainwashed.
It was an incredible mistake for newspapers to give away their on-line content for free.
But the iPad, eReaders and smart phones give some glimmer of hope with the possibility of subscriptions.
But subscriptions have to be cheap… or, better yet, “free” when bundled with other services, sort of like basic cable.
I am reminded of a scene from my favorite sci fi tv show of all time, Babylon 5:
Ambassador Kosh (looking around the space station): “I shall miss this, when it is gone.”
Station Security Chief Garibaldi: “Man, I really hate it when he does that!”
– - – - -
I will really miss newspapers when they are gone.