Comments on: L.A. Times Circulation Drops Drastically

By: ras

ras — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Patterico,

The day will come when your own site gets more visitors than the LA Times has subscribers for its paper. Of course, at the rate the LAT is going, you might be able to accomplish that just by standing still

By: Patterico

Patterico — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Hey, aren’t you the guy whose comments were limited to 4 a day on TalkLeft?

Frees you up to comment here some more!

By: Patricia

Patricia — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Well, I guess that the loony left will have to buy two papers apiece to keep it afloat.

As I mentioned in another post, now is the time to return those subscription solicitations telling them why you would rather read the phone book than the LAT at any price. Hey, the postage is prepaid!

By: John Oakden

John Oakden — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I for one can certainly understand their declining circulation. As a 25 year subscriber I ended it a year ago after the horrible way Arnold was treated by the Times editoral board. I wrote a letter to Mr. Carrol to let him know my feelings.

By: PRESTOPUNDIT -- "It's a team sport, baby!"

PRESTOPUNDIT -- "It's a team sport, baby!" — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

AND THE LOSER IS .. THE LA TIMES
which continues its circulation free-fall — down a staggering 5.6 percent in just 6 months. The loss of circulation couldn’t have happened to a more deserving newspaper. The paper…