8 Comments

“…but have they read this one?”

The smart ones have.

If you’ve read this one you know that that one doesn’t mean all that much.

These numbers are only going to go up and even modest increases will severely damage the economic underpinnings of the MSM. An estimated mere one percent decrease in readership and viewers per year works out to a ten percent drop in a decade. This is devastating. People will lose their jobs and many MSM outlets will go out of business.

Iím reminded of how the radio stations had to dramatically revise their business model when their audience started spending more time in front of the TV set. The NY Times, for instance, is not going to disappear. Iím convinced it will still be around long after we are all dead. It simply will not have the overwhelming influence it possessed in the recent past. The Times’ editors and journalists will become second class citizens next to top bloggers.

My social/golf/work contacts either read no blogs, or they read a half dozen every day. The latter group also does its “newspaper” reading online.

Has anyone done more granular polling to understand these patterns?

ìThe latter group also does its “newspaper” reading online.î

These people most likely have yet to be convinced that the top bloggers are worthy of their trust. They may not be thrilled by the MSM, but the new guys (and gals) are unfamiliar to them. In less than five years, I predict that just about everyone of them will switch to the blogs for their serious reading. It may also not continue being a matter of the MSM losing a small percentage of their audience each year. The drop in popularity regarding what is offered by the MSM could soon reach tipping point proportions. One day the bottom might fall out.

David Thompson,

The NY Times, for instance, is not going to disappear. Iím convinced it will still be around long after we are all dead.

Perhaps it will enter a niche market. I used to have the sense that Howell Raines was trying to make the Times into the US version of the Guardian, giving up the pretense of impartiality and openly pursuing a partisan agenda that would appeal to a core audience.

ìI used to have the sense that Howell Raines was trying to make the Times into the US version of the Guardian, giving up the pretense of impartiality and openly pursuing a partisan agenda that would appeal to a core audience.î

Iím convinced thatís happening at this very moment. It is the tacitly understood agenda of Pinch Sulzberger and his closest associates. The stock owners of this publicly traded company would be appalled. A niche market is usually not as lucrative as a that attracting a wider audience. But the radicalized Sulzberger doesnít give a damn. He prefers living a dream world, and frankly heís got enough money to keep himself happy. Declining circulation numbers do not greatly concern him. Being invited to the best parties in Manhattan is of far greater importance.

Only a few years ago, conservatives were irritated by the NY Times. Today, The host of this very blog and many other post 9/11 Liberals are contemptuous of this formally well respected publication. Thatís just too many people who no longer trust the Times. The situation is only going to get worse.

CBS has obviously made that choice. Trying to hold onto their base is the very thing that will prevent their resuscitation into respectability.