Perhaps;if they offered less-biased,one sided, poorly researched news they might do better.
Gary K.

http://adage.com/article?article_id=125141

Media Work Force Sinks to 15-Year Low

Newspaper Slump and the Shift to Digital, Direct Take Toll on Employment.

U.S. media employment in December fell to a 15-year low (886,900), slammed by the slumping newspaper industry.

A majority (11 of 19) media stocks have fallen.

Since media employment peaked in dot-com-infused 2000, media companies have eliminated one in six jobs (167,600).

Newspapers, TV and radio all cut staffing last year. The only media sectors to add jobs: magazines (up a meager 400 jobs) and internet media companies (up 9,200).

The big problem is newspapers, which account for half (82,800) of media jobs lost since 2000. One in four newspaper jobs have disappeared since newspaper employment peaked in 1990.

More in depth on the real news! Not pharmaceutical backed "studies". I find it takes me less and less time to read our local newspaper "The Tri-City Herald" because the stories are so superficial...

Newspapers aren't just slumping, they're dying.

Mainstream media, namely televison, is probably enjoying the last of its glory days as well.

The main reason for this is the very machine you read these words off of. I, personally, spend much more time online now than I do watching television. Almost as a rule, I never turn to the major network news for information.

The "journalism" in newspapers today is nearly worthless. The requirements for even attaining the necessary academic degrees are now so based on politics that one is unlikely to have any special talent for writing honed while attaining such degrees. Sorry to be so blunt, but you're probably better served by being a hot, young, articulate chick than you are by being H.L. Mencken. Hot, young, articulate chicks look better on TV than H.L. Mencken. These "hot, young chicks", I should mention, are usually quite nimble-minded and intelligent, but they don't tend to be original thinkers.

(Excuse me if I'm not being PC, but I can't help but notice that the intelligent, supremely informed 25 year old woman that I notice more and more on my TV, also happens to be a TV friendly, spectacular babe. If you still don't know what I'm talking about, you'll usually find her in the split screen across from the male, potbellied, bespactled 50 year old economics nerd and NOT the FEMALE, potbellied, bespactled 50 year old economics nerd. When you start seeing more of the latter, perhaps there's an argument to be made that I'm the one who's perpetuating supposed stereotypes.)

Newspapers are now a delivery system for flyers, coupons and human-interest entertainment, but even the latter is always written for the lowest common denominator. Why would I waste my time when I can specifics off of the internet? Even if you're particularly interested in a particular item in the newspaper, the articles only give you general surface information.

Last, the people who make newspapers seem to suffer from the same syndrome as the people who produce loaves of bread; they don't seem to realize, regarding proportion, that it isn't 1957 anymore. Every week I throw out at least half a loaf of bread, simply because it isn't 1957 anymore, and I'm not feeding a family of five. Similarly, newspapers seem to be eternally married to this idea that they should be delivered in a cumbersome 3 foot by 2 foot format, where one reads small print off of positively gigantic pages, as if Dad is still resting comfortably in the 1957 easy chair, reading the paper and smoking his pipe. Today, people are quite used to getting information off 2 inch by 3 inch screens. Get with the times.

Our newspaper just takes the feeds from the wire service (i.e. AP) and doesn't expand on how that news might affect our area. How lazy...

We have some good young reporters, but we are not a major market...they'll move on to bigger and better slumping markets!

ANY smoker that buys a newspaper should have his headexamined-at least that's the case with 90% of them, because that's the rough number that are rabid smoker-haters. Their rags are mostly free online anyway. I haven't bought a rag for years now. I laugh whenever I see most of them fold. If only some local TV stations or networks would.

You've got that right, Dave. My paper, the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram, is extremly biased against smoking. For each comment made from citizens against the proposed statewide Wisconsin smoking ban, the paper made sure there were 4 in favor............

I'd like to add the free newspapers to your list! Here in the Boston are, we have this free paper called the Boston Metro - it's this free paper that is given out at most (if not all), bus & subway (T) stations. The paper is such a smoke hater rag, I refuse to even take a copy for the free coupons. I even thought at one point, that the Metro might be owned by anti-tobacco.

Yeah-we have TWO free weekly papers here in Toledo-one is rabidly smoker-hater, the other one is sensible and pro-smoker's rights. That one came out with editorials against the statewide ban. It was quite refreshing to see that in print, I must say. Of course, other than that, they're liberal Bush/Cheney haters.