Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Hugh Hewitt :: Townhall.com Columnist
Just the Facts, Maam, Just the Facts
by Hugh Hewitt
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

What do Craig's List, Greer's OC and Townhall.com all have in common?

Each is a mortal threat to newspapers.

Craig's List ( http://www.craigslist.com ) which provides free and comprehensive classified advertising in most major cities of the US and does so for free. It is overwhelmingly the choice of young web users, an classified ad revenue for newspapers is as a result an endangered species of profit.

GreersOC ( http://www.greersoc.com ) is a micro-marketing site and newsletter pitching high end retail in the OC. (Greer's a friend of mine as is her husband, facts a lefty blogger thought it outrageous that I didn't mention when I posted about her site on my blog.) She's already sold six months of ads to the biggest names in the OC because they know hers is a high touch marketing ploy, as opposed to the low or non-existence touch rate for newspaper print ads in this era of declining circulation.

And Townhall.com is not only a one stop shopping center for news and opinion, it is now home --in its third week-- to more than 1,000 new blogs, a blog community that will grow and grow as Townhall.com penetrates further and further into the reading demographic that also wants to participate, but not according to old media's rules or who can no longer endure the MSM’s many left-wing biases.

But don't believe me. Believe the numbers.

Here, thanks to Aabria, an intern of extraordinary patience and diligence, is a circulation chart of the Los Angeles Times that compares, at six months intervals, the circulation of the paper (daily and Sunday) and the population of the region:
1970
975,491/1,308,710
982,075/1,317,220
7,041,980
1971
982,075/1,317,220
1,009,519/1,208,209
7,085,000
1972
1,009,519/1,208,209
1,026,499/1,210,556
7,065,000
1973
1,026,499/1,210,556
1,026,499/1,210,556
7,034,000
1974
1,036,911/1,226,132
1,036,911/1,226,132
7,021,000
1975
1,045,497/1,236,066
1,045,497/1,236,066
7,086,000
1976
1,037,963/1,244,713
1,037,963/1,244,713
7,160,000
1977
1,020,479/1,289,183
1,020,987/1,309,677
7,240,000
1978
1,020,987/1,309,677
1,034,329/1,332,875
7,315,000
1979
1,034,329/1,332,875
1,057,611/1,344,660
7,380,000
1980
1,057,611/1,344,660
1,057,611/1,344,660
7,477,421
1981
1,043,028/1,289,314
1,043,028/1,289,314
7,571,000
1982
1,036,522/1,290,194
1,081,050/1,340,743
7,679,000
1983
1,081,050/1,340,743
1,072,500/1,358,420
7,830,000
1984
1,072,500/1,358,420
1,064,392/1,331,666
7,962,000
1985
1,064,392/1,331,666
1,076,466/1,346,343
8,092,000
1986
1,076,466/1,346,343
1,103,656/1,368,105
8,249,000
1987
1,103,656/1,368,105
1,127,607/1,411,000
8,419,000
1988
1,127,607/1,411,000
1,136,813/1,421,711
8,556,000
1989
1,136,813/1,421,711
1,118,649/1,433,739
8,650,000
1990
1,118,649/1,433,739
1,225,189/1,514,096
8,863,160
1991
1,225,189/1,514,096
1,242,864/1,576,425
8,988,200
1992
1,242,864/1,576,425
1,164,388/1,531,527
9,115,600
1993
1,164,388/1,531,527
1,138,353/1,521,197
9,208,100
1994
1,138,353/1,521,197
1,104,651/1,502,120
9,280,600
1995
1,104,651/1,502,120
1,058,498/1,457,583
9,327,300
1996
1,058,498/1,457,583
1,021,121/1,391,076
9,369,800
1997
1,021,121/1,391,076
1,068,812/1,361,988
9,470,900
1998
1,068,812/1,361,988
1,095,007/1,385,373
9,603,300
1999
1,095,007/1,385,373
1,098,347/1,385,787
2000
1,098,347/1,385,787
1,111,785/1,384,688
9,519,330
2001
1,111,785/1,384,688
1,111,785/1,384,688
9,662,859
2002
1,006,130/1,376,932
1,006,130/1,376,932
9,828,805
2003
934,758/1,386,107
934,758/1,386,107
9,979,361
2004
961,990/1,359,593
961,990/1,359,593
10,107,451
2005
905,107/1,272,187
905,107/1,272,187
10,226,506
2006
852,000/1,213,000
852,000/1,213,000

The numbers tell us many things.

First, owning Tribune stock is not a good idea for as long as the company owns the Times but refuses to manage it.

Second, the decline of the Times predates the rise of the internet, but the internet has accelerated the descent. The Times circulation, both daily and Sunday, peaks in 1991 and begins to erode in those years before the internet delivery of news and information via online editions and blogs was even a small cloud on the horizon. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Hugh Hewitt is host of a nationally syndicated radio talk show. Hugh Hewitt's new book is The War On The West.

Be the first to read Hugh Hewitt's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Hugh, you left out one thing.
How about the 'dumbing down' of America.
A vast majority of the population are products of the public (indoctrination) school systems in this nation.
From the textbooks to the administrations of "teaching" colleges, the schools have transformed themselves into that scene from the Pink Floyd video: We Don't Need No Education(mind-numbed robots pushed through a conveyer in a 'cookie cutter' fashion until they fall, one after another after another, into a trash bin).
The running joke has always been if you made it through high school knowing how tell time from a clock with 'hands',then you were considered to be a genius.

The analysis is lacking
While Mr. Hewitt is quite accurate in noting the declining trends in circulation, he stays too focused in his politics to explore some other, possibly more rational, explanations for the decline.
Granted, it is not a wise move for a paper to move too far to the left. After all, that would alienate a sizeable portion of the potential market. The LA Times has hurt itself in that arena, but I doubt that it is the sole driver. Is it even the primary driver?
First, I would note the ascendency of cable news. I know I could get as much from Headline News as I could from scanning the LA Times. I already pay for the cable news programs with my cable package. Why would I plunk down extra money for a newspaper that has little added value? This would explain the decline before the explosion of the internet.
Next, consider the population demographics. The non-English speaking population of LA has grown dramatically. Why would a Spanish-speaking person buy a newspaper printed in English? Yes, some Spanish speaking people may want to learn English, but as multiculturalism discounts the need to learn English, why put forth the effort? (Ironic that liberal policies hurt a liberal newspaper, isn't it?)

2001-2006 data
Are the 2001-6 data correct? The numbers for Jan 1 and June 1 in those years are exactly the same, which seems unlikely.

Sudoku
If it wasn't for the puzzles and Dilbert you wouldn't be able to give awat the papers. We should fight global warming and continue to not waste trees on the LAT, NYT, WashPo etc. Sudoku is the only reason I ever buy the Boston Globe.

RE: That other Steve
Steve, I think your analysis itself is slightly lacking, at least on your first point. The cable news programs' viewership is nearly non-existent when compared to the evening network news -- even today. The highest rated cable news show (and by an ENORMOUS margin) is, of course, Bill O'Reilly's show, but while the ratings for O'Reilly's show is measured on the order of 1.5 million viewers, most of the evening network news shows come in at tent times as many viewers.

Your second point, though, may hold slightly more water. The question is, though, has the English speaking population increased during the period measured? I would guess that it has, and yet the circulation has continued to decline in absolute numbers.

The bottom line is that newspapers across the nation are losing readers. While it may only be circumstantial that these papers have also been sprinting to the left, one can't just dismiss that.

Here in the CommonThenft of Taxachusetts, our "big paper" is, of course, the Boston Globe (or, as intelligent people refer to it, the Boston Glob), which is a New York Times affiliate. The primary reason they continue to lose readers, according to my own personal polling, is that they keep getting caught flat out lying in order to slander people right of center. Some of their more eggregious lies include their publishing of pictures downloaded from an internet porn site depicting what looked like a US Marine raping an Iraqi women and claiming that was "proof" of more abuse (in fact it was merely a staged photo for the porn site) and claiming one of our local (now nation wide) talk show hosts said something that he never did say (the Glob claimed Jay Severin stated all Muslims were terrorists, or something to that effect, and they based the claim off of a memo from the Council for Arab Islamin Relations, and never even bothered to verify the veracity of the claims).

The Glob's parent, the New York Times hasn't been caught lying quite so blatently, but it certainly doesn't help that they are proactively aiding and abetting terrorists, not only by printing classified information on its front page, but also maximizing -- if not flat out exaggerating -- all bad things about Iraq while turning a blind eye to all the good. If Abreham Lincoln were president, the editors and owners of the Times would have been hung from the neck until dead, with any member of SCOTUS who disagreed with said action being imprisoned, at least a year ago.

In short, it is truly unsurprising the major papers are losing readership. Blatent inaccuracies and lies, leftward slant, and internet news competition have all contributed to that decline.

Cold Turkey Works
The fact that the weekday circulation of the times has declined by almost 400,000 since it peak in 1991, while L.A.'s population has increased by approximately 1.25 million, sheds light on a trend of long term decline. I was part of that decline, having cancelled my subscription about 15 years ago.

Nevertheless, I was compelled by the guilty pleasure of the Times' excellent sports coverage to continue buying the paper off the news rack 4 ot 5 days a week. I just had to have that sports section in the morning.

That all changed after the SWIFT program disclosures. I decided I could not in good conscience give the Times one dime more of my money, even at the sacrifice of my guilty sports pleasure. So I went cold turkey. I have not purchased an L.A. Times - or any other newspaper, for that matter - since July 12, 2006.

Guess what? I don't miss it at all. I can get all the news and sports I need or have time for via the Internet, Fox, and ESPN.

Who needs the L.A. Times? Who needs ANY newspaper. Not me. I'm free, free at last, and I'm never going back. Nope, not one dime more . . .

Number of LA Times Subscribers
While I agree with Mr. Hewitt that the LA Times is a socialist rag, in some ways his stats are misleading because he doesn't take into account demographic factors. If one looks at the ethnic makeup of the LA area, the ratio of English to Spanish speakers has markedly declined. The Times is disappearing for the same reasons that LA can't support an NFL football team: the new citizens of Southern California don't speak English unless they have to, and they don't know anything about American Football. Hablan Spanish. But whatever can cause the LA Times to die a slow death is a good thing, right?

Putting it all together.
Hugh states:

"Part of that story of decline is the relentless left wing bias of the paper"

"And Townhall.com is not only a one stop shopping center for news and opinion, it is now home --in its third week-- to more than 1,000 new blogs, a blog community that will grow and grow as Townhall.com penetrates further and further into the reading demographic that also wants to participate, but not according to old media's rules or who can no longer endure the MSM’s many left-wing biases."

Ok, let's put this together.

The answer to biased liberal media is ... biased conservative media? Is the bias the sales problem? Or just the wrong bias? Liberals don't read?

Is Hugh arguing that only conservative bias will make money or that bias itself is the problem? If bias itself is a problem then Townhall.com wouldn't be growing?

To wit: if biased media is ok then wouldn't biased left and biased right media find some natural equalibrium whereby they both make money in their respective markets?

What's interesting is that Fox News claims it is "fair and balanced". Which is why I assume Dick Cheney insists that all TVs in his hotel rooms be tuned to Fox when he travels, why righties like Bush and Cheney almost exclusively give interviews to Fox and why liberals don't watch Fox news.

Righties lambast the NYT for being liberal biased when the NYT claims to be "objective". These same Righties are perfectly comfortable with the "fair and balanced" sloganeering of Fox News. I fail to see the difference.

So if the sales problem is lying about being "objective" and "fair and balanced" then Fox News should be going down the tubes soon as well.

Personally I don't see the tacits being used on the right with respect to the media being any different than what the left is doing.

The only trend apparent to myself is that media is moving away from any attempt of being mainstream or objective to being either radical left or radical right. Is that a good thing?

I just hope NPR hangs in there.




Cynicism
The combination of Hollywood and the other leftwing media tools have done a fabulous job of creating young leftwing cynics--people who think everything in America is crooked to the core, or that starting your career at the bottom of the ladder is for chumps. The problem with creating that leftwing mindset is that a pessimistic cynic doesn't care much about public policy, because they've been taught that it doesn't matter--the game's been fixed. What’s the point? Once people believe all that leftwing negativism, then they do other things with their time besides reading the LA Times. Conservatives don’t believe all the cynicism, but they wouldn’t read the LA Times for other reasons.

R.I.P.
Since the Vietnam War, Americans have been disillusioned by the MSM. We were waiting for something else when talk radio came along. Also, the Internet is there to provide information instantly! When the MSM wouldn't show those controversial cartoons, I found them on the Internet. I found a speech by Charles Lindberg that was referenced on a news program. When Harold Reynolds was fired by ESPN a few days ago, I turned to the Internet to find out why. Whether it's a baseball score or some esoteric detail in history, the Internet is the best source. If someone writes an article for a paper, it must agree with their editorial slant and a letter to the editor is often cut with main points deleted. The press is not free anymore and it deserves its quiet descent into the still shadows. R.I.P.

NPR will live for ever.
liberal_dialog writes:
I just hope NPR hangs in there.


As long as it keeps getting its big fat government subsidy the liberals will have a source that supports their cause long after the the commercial entities have been ridden to the ground.



Thanks, Hugh
Hugh:

Thanks for the quick response to my request that yoy fully disclose your relationships to the subjects of your writing.

One quibble: while you acknowledged your ties to GreersOC.com, you didn't identify your relationship with me. Identifying me as a "lefty blogger" doesn't so much demean me as it does you. I know you well enough to know that you understand this. --Will Swaim

Fair and balanced
... and unafraid" as Brit says.

You lefties crack me up complaining about Fox News. Do you think Alan Colmes or Greta Van Susteren (who's husband worked for the election of Kerry) are *conservatives* ? How about Sheppard Smith? I suppose you think Bill O'Reilly is the epitome of right wing, too?

Also, do you look at who their guests are? How they get both conservatives and liberals on to argue an issue? Not like "3 liberals vs. George Will" as found on the Big Broadcast 3's shows, either. Maybe that is what you *really* don't like, a 1 on 1 instead of the usual 3 on 1, or even 3 vs. 0. On Fox you get *both* sides, which is why they say, "Fair and balanced."

I think this is another "talking point" for you liberals. No experience would bring you to this conclusion. The liberals on that network make me just as crazy as the ones elsewhere. The difference is my guys get to bat as well.

You then mention NPR? Now I suppose you also want to claim NPR is anything other than a government-paid left-wing mouthpiece? Get a grip. NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are solutions to problems that no longer exists, if they ever did. They should be cut off the dole; should have been some years past.

Hate to Burst Your Bubble But...
...no article on your "news" page as I write this (at ~5:15 on 7/27/06) has a date line more recent than 7/25/06. This is hardly NEWs and certainly not a threat to any other news source.

Take a look at http://news.myway.com/index.html. Although it features The Associated Press and its anti-American bias, it does present news that is continually updated and in a format that makes the news easy to access. I'd love to see TownHall do as good a job while presenting news from multiple sources --- identified by source --- and retaining my ability to comment on articles.

News
Chuck:
The lag in updates to the news section is a technical issue that will be corrected very very soon.

OC?
Will somebody please be kind enough to explain what the heck the acronym "OC" means? I cannot glean its meaning from its usage in Mr. Hewitt's column: "...high end retail in the OC" or "..the biggest names in the OC...".

"OC" appears to be some sort of noun, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what it means. Is it a person, a place or a thing?
Visting the greersoc web site helped a little but not much. The website appears to be some sort of on-line retail store, but since it doesn't advertise the sale of "OC"s I am ruling out "thing".

This leaves "person" or "place". Does anyone know who or where an "OC" is? Thank you.

OC
Wayne,

Digging through the site, I figured that OC=Orange County.

I thought Hugh did a very poor job explaining just what these competitors were.

NEWSPAPERS
THE ONLY GOOD NEWSPAPERS I KNOW OF ARE THE ONES I BURN TO START MY FIREWOOD IN THE WINTER TIME.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.