COURANT’S CIRCULATION OFF 10% IN 5 YEARS
December 4th, 2006 by Brian
An article in today’s Republican-American (not online) says that the Audit Bureau of Circulation has recorded a 9.9% drop in the circulation of the Courant’s daily edition over the last five years. The Courant’s reporting on its own staff reductions has never mentioned this figure.
There are likely many different reasons for the Courant’s decline. But the paper’s liberal bias is surely one of them. The paper should hire a social conservative columnist to speak for the significant number of state residents not represented in its pages before it loses another 10% of its readership.
There are likely many different reasons for the Courant’s decline. But the paper’s liberal bias is surely one of them.
Evidence? If it is sure that the paper’s liberal bias is one of the reasons, surely there must be some evidence of this, no?
I recently cancelled my subscription to the Courant. I would say however that the liberal bias of the Courant isn’t any worse than the Washington Post, the NY Times, or the Boston Globe.
My problem is the peurile nature of many articles particularly in the magazine sections. I have small children at home and I am simply not ready to explain articles that celebrate sexual immorality.
I think that Brian Brown might have had articles that tacitly celebrate “alternative lifestyles” in mind when he wrote of liberal bias. I wouldn’t say that a celebration of morally unencumbered sexuality is necessarily liberal. There are plenty of liberals, people who believe that government can and should actively try to cure societies ills, that reject moral decay.
I wonder if their circulation is down because everyone gets their news from the internet? I wonder? Hmmmmm.
I think even you know that this is much ado about nothing.
Move on.
Just before election day 2006 the Hartford Courant endorsed Democrats over Republicans by a 30-3 margin! You would have to say that the Courant leans to the left.
Sherlock, this is about as close to “evidence” as you probably are going to find:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003316421
It’s down all around the nation, folks. “Severely.”
“The Hartford (Conn.) Courant’s daily circ was down 3.9% to 179,066 while Sunday dropped slightly, 1.5% to 264,539.”
That’s just for the most recent “six-month period ending September 2006.” !!
Here’s more: “The Los Angeles Times reported that daily circulation fell 8% to 775,766. Sunday dropped 6% to 1,172,005.
The San Francisco Chronicle was down. Daily dropped 5.3% to 373,805 and Sunday fell 7.3% to 432,957.
The New York Times lost 3.5% daily to 1,086,798 and 3.5% on Sunday to 1,623,697. Its sister publication, The Boston Globe, reported decreases in daily circulation, down 6.7% to 386,415 and Sunday, down 9.9% to 587,292.
The Washington Post lost daily circulation, which was down 3.3% to 656,297 while Sunday declined 3.6% to 930,619.
Circulation losses at The Wall Street Journal were average, with daily down 1.9% to 2,043,235. The paper’s Weekend Edition, however, saw its circulation fall 6.7% to 1,945,830.
Daily circulation at USA Today slipped 1.3% to 2,269,509.
The Chicago Tribune showed slight declines. Daily dropped 1.7% to 576,132 and Sunday decreased 1.3% to 937,907.
Losses at the Miami Herald were steep. Daily circulation fell 8.8% to 265,583 and Sunday fell 9.1% to 361,846.”
The LA TIMES, SF Chron, Wash.Post, NYT, The Boston “abortion-facts-ignoring Ellen Goodman” Globe. All well-known as left-leaning, and at least 3 of them proven to be according to this UCLA prof. whom I cited in a combox above (http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm ).
The WSJ and The Chicago (“After reassessing the administration’s nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege”) Tribune. Both known for being more conservative or centrist.
Simon, how does “everyone get their news from the internet” when there is still a great digital divide that keeps many underprivileged kids and adults from having PCs even, never mind internet access, or the time–when they’re working 2 or 3 or 4 jobs–to go sit there and get their news? This is a statement I don’t think you thought through before you wrote it. You believe everyone gets their news through the internet because you believe what the “better-off culture” in our society thinks, especially here in “wealthy-but-cheapest-skates-in-the-nation-in-charitable-donations” New England.
You have no clue how many people you ignored with that statement. You and a lot of Americans are guilty of this lack of awareness.
No answer, Sherlock? Simon? Are you still there? Are you open to acknowledging the “evidence” you challenged us for, if you are? If you’re there, you are not so strangely silent in the face of the answers you challenged us to provide.
Simon, while it is true that more and more Americans are going online and that circulations will continue to drop (Newspaper Industry Faces $20 Billion Revenue Shortfall by 2010, Says OutSell, Inc. – August 15, 2006 http://www.tekrati.com/research/News.asp?id=7632 ), “I think even you know that” your condescension towards those who don’t think as you do “is much ado about nothing.”
Grow up. That is, stop demeaning others because they don’t believe as you do (esp. when you don’t provide any facts to support your “everyone” statements).