I quit decades ago myself, but only because the oldest conservative paper, no, strike that, the oldest paper West of the Rockies went under.
The one Samuel Clemons used to editor for
The only thing left was a rag by the Mc Clatchy family called the Sacto. Bee.

The thought that newspaper delivery will cease in many cities around the nation is disquieting, but circulation is plunging.

The result is that reductions of newsroom staffs, reporters and editors, have been surging, with jobs eliminated in 2011 reaching nearly 30% more than the prior year. There have been five years of revenue declines. One blogger, Erica Smith, who follows the trends, estimated that 3,775+ newspaper jobs were eliminated in 2011.

According to an annual survey by the American Society of News Editors, nearly one in three newsroom jobs have been eliminated since the number of journalists peaked at 56,900 in 1989. By the end of 2010, there were only 41,600 ink-stained wretches left on the industry's payrolls.

In recent weeks The Wall Street Journal reported "Gannett's Profit Drops 33%" and "Thompson Reuters Posts Loss."

Putting aside why advertisers are seeking greener pastures and platforms to sell their goods, let me suggest that an underlying and largely unexplored reason for the declines being felt throughout traditional print journalism outlets is that people simply do not want to pay for lies every day between the horoscope, the crossword puzzle, and the obituary page.

Lies? The print media and its broadcast counterpart fell totally in love with Barack Obama in 2008 and we ended up with a completely unknown and largely unvetted former Senator who hadn't even served a full term there. People remember stuff like that.

They remember years of unmitigated lies about "global warming" when there wasn't any threat at all.

They remember being told that coffee was bad for you followed by stories that coffee is good for you.

There are many factors at play in the decline of newspapers, but I think one factor is the general disenchantment with the product—the news—that too often tends to turn out to be false.

© Alan Caruba, 2012
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44737?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=80816d9614-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email

I take the Wall Street Journal. But I will never in any way knowingly give anything towards a leftist rag. And since most papers are leftist rags that makes my choice pretty clear.

My local rag (which I wrote for, for 4.5 years) brought out an electronic edition which is so badly-organized and so badly-edited that it becomes high comedy just to view its home page.

One feature (the single biggest reason people buy that paper) is the district and circuit court news, and police and sheriff reports. The on-line version carries neither.

The second-biggest reason people buy the paper is the advertising. The outfit that owns the paper has raised ad rates twice in two years, trying to milk the fiscal cow. Now fewer ads are in the pulp edition (and almost no ads in the on-line version).

They also printed ONLY that Obama had offered a "compromise" on mandated coverage of birth control, without mentioning the Catholic Church self-insures and the mandate would still force a church to go against its religious beliefs.

Gotta love that selective myopia. The fewer Georgia pines getting crushed into newsprint, the higher per-roll costs for the papers they do print. The longer they wait to embrace technology that readers actually WANT and will actually USE, the higher that paper cost alone will get.

Their answer? Reduce page widths. Then when people stopped contributing, the paper adopted a new type font with a taller character x-height, meaning fewer words per page on a paper that steadily shrank to about 2/3rds what it was when I worked there.

I think the small town paper is alive and well, only for the reasons you mentioned, very local news.
But the behemoths of the past reflect the life cycle of the dinosaur, they tout the lie of AGW, only to be struck down like the Mastodon in a deep freeze

Define behemoth when the newspaper is also the only daily in that county (a very common occurrence here in Michigan). By legal definition it is the county's newspaper of record, for legal advertising purposes.

Consider that income in this age of tax sales and other county advertising. It's strong incentive to rock no boats with the local government (in my county's case, totally corrupted Democrats and a gaggle of gutless RINOs).

Quote from: quiller on February 20, 2012, 08:50:59 AM
Define behemoth when the newspaper is also the only daily in that county (a very common occurrence here in Michigan). By legal definition it is the county's newspaper of record, for legal advertising purposes.

Consider that income in this age of tax sales and other county advertising. It's strong incentive to rock no boats with the local government (in my county's case, totally corrupted Democrats and a gaggle of gutless RINOs).

Yeah, I guess in your case it is almost apples to oranges to my County.
The Mountain Democrat in my area is a small local paper by comparison more than a century old.
The next paper would be the Sacto. bee, which has virtually no circulation in my neck of the woods, were a Conservative County.

So what you are saying is
"Even though they "produce" a newspaper, they can't sell it??"

SO, a producer "produced" something and they can't sell it??

I thought the first rule of commerce was that IF you produce it, it will sell!

Could that be because there is NO DEMAND for the newspaper?

Thanks to Solar for an example of how the economy works.

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on February 20, 2012, 09:06:49 AM
So what you are saying is
"Even though they "produce" a newspaper, they can't sell it??"

SO, a producer "produced" something and they can't sell it??

I thought the first rule of commerce was that IF you produce it, it will sell!

Could that be because there is NO DEMAND for the newspaper?

Thanks to Solar for an example of how the economy works.

Does everything go over your head?
If you'll take notice where I've stated that small town papers are still alive, its the big ones that print lib lies as news that are dropping and near death.
Loot at the biggest one, NY Times circulation and staff cuts if you want proof.

You do realize you are a poster child for lib posters and that's not a compliment.

Even at reduced subscription rates, the paper in my county wants 75 cents a copy, even after hiking ad prices. At the rate they are going, I expect to see them selling $2 sheets of Stick-Up Notes.

The paper has seen five or six corporate owners since the 1970s. Each held on to the paper only long enough to milk its tax advantages as a corporate loss-leader, and in my case I worked for two-fisted corporate alcoholics who were both ultimately fired for their bad management.

It's more than just supply and demand.

But Solar, You and your low IQ buds have spent 7 pages telling me that IF a producer MAKES something it will sell.

Thats the law of economics, produce first, Demand will grow from that, PERIOD.

I say that if there is no demand Nothing will sell.

Why are the newspapers going out of business??

Tell me solar, why are they going out of business??

Lack of DEMAND for newspapers!

simple enough even for a tea party member.

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on February 20, 2012, 09:23:46 AM
But Solar, You and your low IQ buds have spent 7 pages telling me that IF a producer MAKES something it will sell.

No we didn't, no one said that.
Show me where we said anything will sell if a producer produces it.

QuoteThats the law of economics, produce first, Demand will grow from that, PERIOD.

I say that if there is no demand Nothing will sell.
Why are the newspapers going out of business??

Tell me solar, why are they going out of business??

Lack of DEMAND for newspapers!

simple enough even for a tea party member.

If you read the OP, he explained it quite well.
Liberal lies don't sell!

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on February 20, 2012, 09:06:49 AM
So what you are saying is
"Even though they "produce" a newspaper, they can't sell it??"

SO, a producer "produced" something and they can't sell it??

I thought the first rule of commerce was that IF you produce it, it will sell!

Could that be because there is NO DEMAND for the newspaper?

Thanks to Solar for an example of how the economy works.

They did produce something that was wanted - at the time.  Trends come and go.  Take this argument back to the thread it was started in and stop hijacking other threads.  Toy

Nope...don't take the paper and haven't for years....including the once a week free one.

Lefties are the ones who think they can centrally plan demand. Chevy volt. Home ownership for unqualified borrowers. Solar panels for home use. Ethanol. These are all leftist attempts to create demand where it does not exist.

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on February 20, 2012, 09:23:46 AM
But Solar, You and your low IQ buds have spent 7 pages telling me that IF a producer MAKES something it will sell.

Thats the law of economics, produce first, Demand will grow from that, PERIOD.

I say that if there is no demand Nothing will sell.

Why are the newspapers going out of business??

Tell me solar, why are they going out of business??

Lack of DEMAND for newspapers!

simple enough even for a tea party member.

No one said any such thing.  In order to buy something, it must exist first.  I'm sorry that goes over your head.