March 14, 2008Newspapers and profitsFrom FollowTheMedia.com: Frank Bennack Jr., immediate past president of Hearst for some 23 years and now board vice chairman, told a California audience this week it’s about time newspaper publishers got real and understood print margins will never again see 30% plus and it’s time for publishers to accept new lower goals. And by coincidence it was a similar message this week, too, from Rupert Murdoch in a presentation he made in New York. The message from both seemed to be that severe newsroom cutting will come back to haunt publishers. “If newspapers don’t cover the news and do it with detail and context, someone else will,” Bennack warned his audience at the 40th annual Hays-Press Enterprise Lecture sponsored by the University of California Riverside. |
SearchQuick Thought
Recent comments
Monthly archivesCategories
Latest columnsToday's editorials
Letters to the editorAbout this blogThe Roanoke Times editorial staff engages readers in a respectful dialogue and exchange of opinion, including our virtual editorial board where you can discuss tomorrow's editorials today. Read more about the editorial staff .....Advertisement.....
|
March 14, 2008
Newspapers and profits
From FollowTheMedia.com:
Frank Bennack Jr., immediate past president of Hearst for some 23 years and now board vice chairman, told a California audience this week it’s about time newspaper publishers got real and understood print margins will never again see 30% plus and it’s time for publishers to accept new lower goals. And by coincidence it was a similar message this week, too, from Rupert Murdoch in a presentation he made in New York.
The message from both seemed to be that severe newsroom cutting will come back to haunt publishers. “If newspapers don’t cover the news and do it with detail and context, someone else will,” Bennack warned his audience at the 40th annual Hays-Press Enterprise Lecture sponsored by the University of California Riverside.
Comments
[March 14, 2008 11:47 AM]
JoshPsst, RT editors:
Someone else already IS covering the news with detail and context, but this time it's in an unbiased manner (read FOX news, Washington Times, etc).
It's incredible you print people are so arrogant as to think the reason papers are failing is because you are laying off people. Try this: People are tired of the liberal slant the print media has applied in an unquestioned manner for so many years. People seek out the truth. Ever wonder why newspapers such as the Washington Times increase in circulation while the rest of you flounder?
[March 14, 2008 11:59 AM]
WillJosh...
Who are you trying to kid with this FOX stuff? FOX is not a news organization, they're an argumentative tabloid that just happens to be on television.
They lean to the right just about as far as the other guys you claim lean to the left.
For the life of me, I don't understand why people think they have to listen to either side develop their spins on issues. Are the American people so weak minded that they can't listen to someone and formulate their OWN opinion?
It amazes me at how "spoon-fed" we've become.
Pitiful...just pitiful.
[March 14, 2008 11:59 AM]
Dan RadmacherJosh,
Actually, the circulation of The Washington Times dropped 4.5 percent to about 95,000 - just a little more than our circulation, even though it covers a far larger metropolitan area. The circulation of The Washington Post is about 695,000 daily.
The Washington Times would have folded long ago, Josh, if not for cash funneled in from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon - just as the ultra-conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review would have folded long ago if not for the money poured into it by Richard Mellon Scaife.
[March 14, 2008 1:18 PM]
JoshOK, the story I read was dated May, 2005 and reported growth for the Washington Times every year. The figure of 100,000 held up until at least last year.
Interestingly, the Washington Post has experienced an 8.8% circulation drop in the past four years with a drop in advertising revenue of 13% in the fourth quarter of last year, so if your source is reliable, it sounds like the Times has experienced just one down year while the Post has been tumbling for years.
The numbers for the LA Times and the Atlanta Urinal are even bleaker with double-digit losses.
So my point remains that it's the liberal media which is taking the hit while the more objective sources are doing better.
[March 14, 2008 1:29 PM]
HenrySo tell us Dan, how much does the Washington Times receive from Sun Myung Moon? Any idea?
Fox News didn't become big by being right-wing. Most conservatives like me don't view Fox as "friendly". They became big by being different. They covered the stories that the big boys ignored.
[March 14, 2008 1:51 PM]
Dan RadmacherHenry,
It's hard to pin down, since the Times is a private business and Moon is so secretive, but estimates are about $100 million a year, with a total subsidy the life of the newspaper of more than $3 billion.
[March 15, 2008 6:23 AM]
GaryI rode the Virginia Railway Express for six years from '97 to 2003 from F'burg to Crystal City (CC). I enjoyed the Wash. Post (W.P.)on the 1.25 hour commute. At the Newpaper boxes at F'burg station the W.P. out stocked the right wing biased Wash. Times (W.T.) about 3:1. Distributors always stock about what they think will sell. As I walked to my office in CC I remember passing a W.T. box, on return back to CC platform for F'burg return there were still plenty of copies of the W.T. that had not sold, and at F'burg the W.P. always indicated it had had a good day, whereas, there were still plenty of W.T. left.
[March 15, 2008 12:26 PM]
JoshYou have to also remember the WP has been around since 1877; the Times only since the 1980s.
The Post has a much bigger distribution network. You can find the Post pretty readily here in Roanoke; the Times not so much. So the Times is most available in the immediate DC and NOVA area which is crawling with liberals. And Gary says the margin is only 3 to 1? I'd say that's pretty good for the Times.