Brian Tierney and Philadelphia Media Holdings L.L.C. can “whistle in the dark” all they want over the fact that the daily paid circulation of the Inquirer rose 0.6 percent based on the latest report from the Audit Bureau of Circulations (here), but the Sunday paper circulation declined by 2.5 percent, and the Sunday editions are where newspapers make their money.I wonder if the Sunday circulation slid because of the installation of Smerky into the “Currents” sections (it would be cumulative, I realize, maybe one too many straws on the camel’s back, when added to Jonathan Last and others…Mark Bowden’s contributions have been interesting, but then again, he’s a legitimate journalist). And by the way, they snuck in Little Ricky Santorum a week ago in some column supposedly pertaining to “family values” or something – you can tell how much attention I paid to it, and I honestly can’t find a link.
The paper’s almost microscopic rise in weekday circulation went slightly against the national trend of declining daily newspaper circulation, as noted here.
And I honestly don’t mention this to delight in the Inky’s misfortune. I’m only pointing out that this is what happens when the paper fails to understand this market and instead delivers recycled noise and prose that merely frames right-wing talking points instead of the groundbreaking journalism this newspaper once produced regularly in an era when it mattered to them.
3 comments:
Your negativity is boring. People like you do nothing to improve situations, while people like Brian Tierney and the other local owners are creative and try new things. This is why people like Brian Tierney are written about in the NYT and other publications, while no one knows or cares about you and your unread blog. This will be the only comment on your blog so enjoy it.
There's a funny Dave Barry bit where he talks about how newspapers are worried about how young people dont read newspapers, so they make "hip" changes which alienate their current readers in an attempt to attract young readers, which doesnt work because young people dont read newspapers.
I suppose, Anon, your disapproval of my post addresses what I’m talking about slightly, but did you really bother to read some of my critiques of other opinion columns and articles published in the Inquirer? They’re all over the place at this site (Ferris, Smerky, Last, some news pieces including the one on Saturday by Larry King reporting that Bucks County is “divided” on Patrick Murphy’s approval for milestones in the Iraq Supplemental even though no statistical evidence is presented, only the vague reporting citing what “many” and “some” residents have to say). I’ve probably been excessive in my criticisms, but it’s just that I recall the high standards the paper once adhered to in its reporting, and some of those reporters taught me in undergraduate journalism classes.
And I don’t know how you can consider the Inquirer’s decision to allow Little Ricky Santorum, for example, column space on Sundays an attempt to be “creative” and trying “something new.” Actually, every time the paper tries to do that, they eventually give up and the net effect is that they shoot themselves in the foot (where did “Blog Cabin” go, for example? I know I’ll never show up there, but it would still be interesting to see what other bloggers are doing, or is that giving into “the enemy” too much? Also, has anyone seen Faye Flam lately? And what was the point in ditching Gail Shister’s column?).
Here’s another question…what is the point also of their “Express” version of the news on the back page of the Sports section? Either people are going to read the paper or they won’t. Is anyone really going to read the Express version and say, “Oh, McGreevey’s wife is going to be on ‘Oprah’ today,” note that it’s part of the Entertainment news, then open the Entertainment section and read where it states that “McGreevey’s wife is going to be on ‘Oprah’ today”? Of course, the reader will probably see about 3-4 ads at least in the process of doing this, assuming they do it once before they decide to never do it again because it’s a waste of time.
Also, if this paper really wanted to reach out to the new media emerging online, they would at least bother to allow for comments to their online columns instead of saying “Contact so-and-so by this phone number (!) or Email address.” I know more and more of their columnists are blogging, and that’s good I suppose, but USA Today does what I’m talking about, for example.
And it makes not a whit of difference to me where Brian Tierney is written up – it can be the Poughkeepsie Journal for all I care (and by the way, as can see, you’re wrong about the only comment to this post). Also, I receive a report every Monday morning of my page views and reads for the prior week, and though I will never be an “A” lister, I can assure you that this is hardly an “unread blog,” and I’m very grateful for that.
Post a Comment