The NT Times has an interesting article in today’s paper talking about the declining revenue and circulation among America’s top newspapers, putting some of the blame on competing classified websites like Craigslist.com.
Milwaukee’s own daily isn’t immune either, with their circuclation figures from a year ago (the last I could find due to the moronic “pay per view archive” on the jsonline.com site) dipping between 1.5% and 3.0% as well.
While competing websites may be to blame for some of the downturn in revenue and readership, I’d like to offer a competing theory.
It could be that people are getting tired of turning to the Editorial page to find that the consistently right wing viewpoints expressed within don’t reflect their own values. Beyond the syndicated right wing columnists the MJS carries every Sunday, we also hear from the local recycler of right wing talking points three times a week, including Sunday.
I’m no journalist, but when I read an entire article that does nothing but propel incorrect information and rehashes a number of the busted right wing talking points about our State Supreme Court race for the sake of it, I question why I subscribe to that newspaper.
I mean really, why am I paying to fund an operation that leaves no doubt about it’s disdain for anything related to the Democratic Party, the Governor of Wisconsin (as long as said Governor is a Democrat), and lets it’s columnists recycle right wing talking points with little or no fact checking? If I lived in Lincoln Nebraska, it would be one thing. But I live in a major metropolitan area that is quite progressive in it’s politics and values.
It’s no wonder major daily papers are losing readers at such a fast rate. They’re not writing for them.
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and sons Carter and Colton.
I won’t be voting for Clifford, as her campaign left an unsolicited message on my answering machine. That is illegal for everyone but politicians and I don’t plan on letting them get away with it.
Since I don’t like Ziegler either, I’ll probably write in a vote for Sommers.
I suggest that you not hold up Doyle as a great example of a Democrat. It doesn’t help the cause. He was part of the pay to play system and don’t have any reason to believe he has stopped taking what are effectively bribes. For example, I don’t see the MSJ take potshots at Feingold (except maybe in the letters to the editor section).
While your theory might account for a number of non-readers, and probably does, newspaper readership has been on the decline since the 1960s. The drop was due to television. The decrease has become even more pronounced now with the internet.
The problem is, people want to be entertained, and the newspapers just can’t compete along those lines with television and the internet.
The bigger problem is that TV and the internet are generally less informative than newspapers, and so the public suffers as a rule.
The bigger problem is that TV and the internet are generally less informative than newspapers,
Interesing thought … why do you say that? I have always thought the Internet is far more informative than TV or newspapers.
and so the public suffers as a rule.
I think the public is freed by the Internet – the truth is “out there”. There are countless examples of TV/newspaper lying (at least being inaccurate) and being exposed via the Internet. Wouldn’t you agree that is more beneficial for the public than having one source of news (ie local newspaper)?
And while some people may like being entertained by the news, I really hate the way television news is done these days as opposed to how it was done in the 60s and 70s.
It gets pretty grating watching all of the advertising of news stories that hint you’d better watch or you might die that take longer than the actual story does.
And certainly newspapers and tv give a much more procorporate version of events than you can find on the internet.
Good point, yeah boy. Here’s what I think: when I read a newspaper I don’t just read headlines. I’ll read the headline, yes, and then I’ll check out the first few paragraphs of the story. If I find it interesting, I’ll read the whole thing. But rarely do I just read headlines.
On the internet, it’s much easier to just read the headlines. They’re all listed in one place and I can skim them. But reading the headlines does not lead to an informed person – it’s the equivalent of watching television news, you get a shallow perception of what’s going on.
What’s to stop an internet reader from actually clicking on the links and reading the stories? Nothing but pure laziness. But don’t discount just how lazy many people are.
When you sit down with a newspaper, you’re dedicating yourself to reading and learning. When you go to an internet news site, you’re not necessarily doing that. There’s always the temptation to get a quick 30-second idea of what’s happening, and then find a more entertaining site.
This reasoning definitely doesn’t apply to everyone. If a person is dedicated to finding out the news, the internet is by far the best way to do it. But reading an actual newspaper will give the average person more motivation to get more than a headline perspective.
I see your point … good thoughts.
Thanks!
Bruno, a few things.. First off, Doyle doesn’t take “bribes” anymore than any other politician does, including Feingold. Is it right? No. Does it need to be fixed? Yes. But that’s a long way from saying Doyle is taking what are effectively bribes.
About the robo-calls, the fact is that they are legal for political campaigns and certain other groups. Some people like them and some don’t, but their use by a candidate shouldn’t be the sole deciding factor in whether or not you’d vote for that person. She’s just using the tools available to her and frankly had nothing to do with the writing or passage of that legislation.
We disagree about robo calls. If some polician robocalls me, they pretty much aren’t getting my vote. (Though I did call one back and he convinced me that it was a third party group doing the calls that he didn’t have control over and we spent some time talking about his actual position.)
The politicians are perfectly aware that people don’t want those calls (and my old phone number was on the WI do not call list, but they didn’t even care to remove those numbers) and that it is only legal because the incumbants feel it gives them an advantage. A scrupolus candidate would not use that method of contacting voters.
Also, unless you make they pay for doing it, they have no reason not to. This is similar to spamming; if a spammer happens to advertise something I might actually want, I am not going to buy the item on principle.
I suspose I could try calling Clifford at home around dinner time to give her a chance to explain why her campaign is using such sleazy tactics and give her a chance to defend her position, but I don’t see it as worth my time.
Unfortunately the campaign finance data for Feingold and Doyle come from different sources and it isn’t organized the same way.
However, at first glance it appears that Feingold gets the majority of his donations from individual contribators, while it appears that perhaps only a quarter of Doyles is in that category (assuming the unkown category is from individual contributors). This is only a rough comparison, as most corporate donations are going to be made as individual contributors who just happen to be employees of corporations who want access to a politician. It may be that a lot of Feingold’s contributors are in that category, but that data was not captured as well as for the Govener’s election. However, based on Feingold’s position on campaign financing, I expect there to be a real difference.
Dang, I meant to include links to the info in the last comment.
Feingold’s campaign contribution data:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?cid=N00000036
Doyle’s campaign contribution data:
http://votesmart.org/finance.php?can_id=BWI76416&fec_id=