Tell John Carroll Why Circulation Has Gone Down
[I am going to bump this post to the top through Monday. There are new posts below it. — P]
John Carroll, outgoing editor of the L.A. Times, says that he is leaving largely due to the paper’s decline in circulation. However, he says:
I believe content had nothing to do with the circulation decline; if anything, the decline was mitigated by our content.
(Via L.A. Observed.)
Carroll, of course, is the guy who defended the timing of the hit piece on Arnold Schwarzenegger, which reportedly cost the paper 10,000 subscriptions.
Back in February, I asked these questions:
Do you read the L.A. Times? If so, why? If not, why not?
If you have cancelled your subscription, tell us why.
What bugs you about the paper? Is there anything about it that you do like?
I got 89 comments — most of them from people who had canceled their subscriptions due to their perception that the paper slants the news to fit a leftist perspective.
If you have not contributed to that thread, please do so now. Don’t leave comments on this post. Click on this link and tell John Carroll why you do (or don’t) read the L.A. Times.
(Thanks to reader Patricia for the idea.)
UPDATE: Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link. I hope any new readers of hers will bookmark the main page and return often.
And make sure you click on the link above and leave a comment for John Carroll!
Who needs a newspaper, anyway? I can get all of the information that I want on the internet: I’m a registered reader for The Philadelphia Inquirer, so I can see any of its stories, I can register, free, for almost any major daily in the country, and get whatever they publish, I can get the much more instantaneous reporting from online news, and I have the freedom to seek out several different sources of news and opinion with just a few mouse clicks.
If I got the print version of The philadelphia Inquirer (the closest “newspaper of record” to where I live, I’d have a single editorial slant (and believe me, it ain’t Republican!), more recyclable paper to have to sort, black smudges and a newspaper smell on my fingers, and a pile of advertisements and stories on subjects in which I have no interest.
Fox News taught the world that news is like anything else: there is a market for proper presentation, and different people with different views will choose different presentation formats. What the newspapers are going to have to do is find a way to become profitable solely through advertising, because it won’t be that much longer before people are simply not going to buy newspapers: they are nothing more than a clutter of dead trees that occupy space, while failing to provide anything that cannot be obtained more cheaply online.
Dana R. Pico (8d0335) — 7/23/2005 @ 5:51 pmLA Times: Tell John Carroll Why Circulation has Gone Down
Patterico has asked his readers to tell departing/retiring editor John Carroll why the Los Angeles Times circulation has gone down.
FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog (baa0b4) — 7/23/2005 @ 7:12 pmBack in February, I asked these questions:
Do you read the L.A. Times? If so, why? If not, why not?
If you have c…
See below the letter I sent to LA Times Readers Rep.
Dear Rep.
I’m not going to complain about the LA Times bias and collectivist slant. That’s covered elsewhere, well and often. What I suggest is, that the LA Times just come out of the closet and OPENLY support Left Wing Political Ideology.
The reason I suggest this is; since you (LA Times) have already determined that people with liberal political views are to be your target audience, stop trying to camouflage it. You see, the number of people you try to fool into thinking that you are objective is far less than the number of new readers you would gain by openly supporting Socialism, Sodomy, Collectivism and Racism (love of dark skinned peoples based on skin color). There are many far-left liberals who think the LA Times is “objective” and don’t subscribe; but would if you just let them know overtly that Collectivism and Public Depravity are your core values. It’s only wild-eyed liberals that don’t notice your unconditional support of unions, elitists, academics, Socialists, Collectivists, and non-white skinned peoples.
This is NOT a complaint letter because I read the LA Times very infrequently. I’m trying to help you reverse your declining circulation by pointing out the advantages of a less stealthy agenda.
Best Regards, Todd Roth
Todd Roth (493a4f) — 7/24/2005 @ 8:31 amTodd:
LA Times needs a stealthy agenda. The political left is not large enought to provide the circulation base to support the LA Times. If the LA Times were just to be a “Democrat” paper it would only target 35% of the adult population. With the high fixed costs of running a paper they would be bankrupt.
A Proud Dad (b79152) — 7/24/2005 @ 9:15 amLA Times Shakeup Shows that The New York Times Is Not Alone in MSM Financial Suffering
The New York Times, whose professional and financial problems I blogged on earlier, is not the only Mainstream Media outlet suffering lost readership and the financial effects of being out of touch.
BizzyBlog.com (475ea5) — 7/24/2005 @ 10:52 amEditor and Publisher reports the “resignation…
Patterico, since I’m not from LA and don’t subscribe I can only observe from afar.
I haven’t seen anyone mention this: While LAT was obsessing with Arnold’s sex life, it missed a story that was right in front of their noses, the fitness magazine relationships, which were solidly in place at the time of the election. For that matter, so did the SF Chron and the SJ Merc News, etc. It wouldn’t have affected the election, since Bustamente was such a loser, but it had more substance than the pre-election hit.
The CJR interview is a hoot. Both interviewer and interviewee are soooooo clueless
Tom Blumer (d8a7a5) — 7/24/2005 @ 11:10 amJohn continues to tell lies that a 12 year old can see through. He give us no credit for having any brains! Just like his reporters.
Rod Stanton (7b6143) — 7/24/2005 @ 4:17 pmBetween free online magazines and newspapers, blogs, and 24-hour cable news, fewer people need a time-fixed physical newspaper anymore. I’m amazed that they still have the circulation they have. Given that classified ads are also delining, anyone would have had problems at the Times.
As far as political slant — they know their market and we rightists are a minority. The problem IS in the stars, not in themsleves.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 7/24/2005 @ 10:35 pmDaily Headlines – Monday, July 25, 2005
Headlines and posts for Monday, July 25, 2005, including major stories and headlines from the weekend.
Big Ideas 4 LA (1d819a) — 7/25/2005 @ 6:37 amHigh Sheikh of Pork
NIF – It’s brainfood!
NIF (59ce3a) — 7/25/2005 @ 6:54 amSubs are down because the Times no longer reports the news. Simple as that. Get back to reporting and stop editorializing.
Wade Garrett (8a4053) — 7/25/2005 @ 6:57 am“While LAT was obsessing with Arnold’s sex life, it missed a story that was right in front of their noses, the fitness magazine relationships”
Are you referring to his gropings as his “sex life”?
actus (cd484e) — 7/25/2005 @ 7:05 amLast week on Imus’ TV show, Democrat mouthpiece and quasi-pundit Craig Crawford was pushing the NYT’s blitz of the Rove/Plame story saying:
I have rule that if the National Enquirer runs 3 bylines on a story it’s probably true and the NY Times has 4 bylines on the Rove/Plame story this morning.
Add your own punchline.
But that got me thinking. Do any of the National dailies revisit and update the stories that they “hump”? Like a self-critique of major stories where they assign top reporters — here’s one we got wrong and here’s why. And since it works both ways, here’s an “attaboy” to Robert Scheer for …. well you get the point.
It may be too much to expect them to report both sides of controversial topics when the facts are unclear, but how about later? It seems to me they just ignore what they don’t like. Hint: Joe Wilson vs. 9-11 Commission.
I’d pay money to read that (well maybe not the LAT, but some dead tree daily).
capitano (f6cfb0) — 7/25/2005 @ 7:09 amGreat…let’s hope the Trib is reading!
Patricia (133563) — 7/25/2005 @ 8:07 amHere is
salt1907 (52c9ef) — 7/25/2005 @ 10:27 amone explanation for the decline - the L.A. Times has been caught in four major lies this year. Check ## 6, 22, 25 and 34 from the list at this link.:I cancelled my subscription after the Arnold affair. In the next 12 hours, I got no less that 8 calls from the collections department to pay of my bill. My wife answered most of the calls very calmly asking them to send a final bill by mail, and we would send them a check (it is how she does the bills). After call number 5, she lost her temper and started unloading on each progressive collector. This harrasement was no doubt a product of the corporate retribution for cancelling conservatives…and lead me to believe even more that I was making the right choice.
tim (205f6e) — 7/25/2005 @ 10:39 amThe Schwarzzeneger article was the last straw in a series of infuriating incidents of liberal bias. I had read the L.A. Times every morning every day since I was 12. I finally ended my habit after 30 years & it feels great! I hope you clowns go bankrupt.
Lou (3f4b89) — 7/25/2005 @ 12:34 pmI wish you folks would add your comments to the other thread rather than this one.
Patterico (ccc7c2) — 7/25/2005 @ 12:36 pmThe problem with the LAT is that it aspires to be the NYT West.
WHY is there a whole column called New York, NY?
WHY does the LAT refuse to cover the following stories:
*Vast increase in murders in South-Central and neighboring areas.
*Possible terror plots that has LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa concerned that he gave an interview to KNBC 4 regarding the issue. Including local targets such as hospitals and the airport.
*Gang conflicts and racial conflicts at local high schools in LA.
Local issues are simply not covered in favor of too many East coast issues, that the LAT competes with the WaPo and NYT. If I wanted those I’d subscribe to them. This is LA not NYC and I expect local coverage to be aggressive and thorough. It’s not even pro-forma coverage. Near total neglect.
Jim Rockford (e09923) — 7/25/2005 @ 12:58 pmI think Kevin (#8) is the closest to identifying what is actually going on, not only at the LAT, but elsewhere as well.
Pre-Internet, pre-cable TV, circulation figures were inflated by people who had no interest in Section A content, but bought the paper because the paper had a monopoly on the classifieds, movie listings, notice of store sales, car ads, sports, comics and help wanted ads. I believe the number of people buying the paper for one of these reasons was actually larger than the number of people buying the paper for the A Section content. As other sources for this material became available elsewhere, this big subset of the readership has fallen off, leaving only those readers who are interested in what the paper is putting on the front page.
With relatively few subscribers caring about what was on the front page, editorial ‘quality’ had very little impact on the overall readership. Sure, there were people who would cancel their subs because of something written on Page 1, but there weren’t enough of these people to shift the overall subscriber counts much in either direction.
Unfortunately for the editors, they believed that people bought their newspaper for the Section A content…. thus they would spend millions on editorial redesigns, they would spend millions on editorial talent and chasing Pulitzers. But with so many readers not caring about Page 1, these efforts were doomed to have no impact on circulation figures (although they had a tremendous negative impact on the bottom line). Since relatively few subscribers cared about Section A, editors were able to indulge their own political slant by running stories and editorials with a liberal slant – the number of readers who would cancel was such a small portion of the total readership that their protests and cancellations were nothing more than a rounding error.
So it’s a bit of a trick question to ask what the likes of John Carroll have done to affect circulation. The answer is that nothing they have done has really affected circulation one way or the other… at least not in any measurable way.
But now that subscribers who care about Section A are becoming a larger percentage of the sub base, it finally becomes necessary for editors to offer content that their (remaining( readers want to read…. and the consequences of advancing a liberal agenda will – depending on the composition of their readership – be reflected in future circulation levels.
My full post on this can be found here…
steve sturm (e37e4c) — 7/25/2005 @ 2:18 pmThe latest offer I received from the LA Dog Trainer: Friday, Saturday and Sunday home delivery, for one year, for SEVENTY-FIVE CENTS A WEEK!
(That’ll show those advertisers we have circulation . . .)
;O)
Kneave Riggall (55c760) — 7/25/2005 @ 4:51 pmThis may sound kinda cheesy, but just like Tony Robbins says….”people do things in life for two reasons, pain or pleasure”. For me the pleasure of reading the great LA Times sports section was outweighed by the tremendous pain of having to read the horrendous op-eds, editorials, and hatchet jobs on republicans in their news stories. I just couldn’t take that pain anymore and I didn’t want to support a company like that anymore.
Powder Blue Report
Allan Bartlett (b09161) — 7/26/2005 @ 8:41 am