Gypsy me
Well-Known Member
One hundred and fifty years of history...wow, sad....
A Huge part of Colorado History goes away
- Thread starter Gypsy me
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Nelson Atwell
Well-Known Member
I used to read this paper when I live in Colorado Springs. I am shocked, since I thought this was the biggest paper in the state. 
Bill Barber
Well-Known Member
San Francisco Chronicle is about to go belly up also.
Am afraid printed news is becoming a thing of the past.
Am afraid printed news is becoming a thing of the past.
WOW, that is very sad. And, the San Francisco Chronicle is in trouble too; as well as the Sacramento Bee (McClatchy Newspapers Inc.).
Gypsy me
Well-Known Member
Nelson, as was I when I saw the news, Geeze now all that is in Denver is The Denver Post. yuck not as easy to flip thru their pages like the News was, huh?
Rodger & Mr B, it is very sad when these long time historical businesses are forced to close and put all their people out of jobs. Very sad
btw, Today was the last day anyone could buy the News in Colorado or anywhere for that matter ...55 days short of their 150th birthday. bummer!
Rodger & Mr B, it is very sad when these long time historical businesses are forced to close and put all their people out of jobs. Very sad
btw, Today was the last day anyone could buy the News in Colorado or anywhere for that matter ...55 days short of their 150th birthday. bummer!
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill Barber
Well-Known Member
I hope the san jose news sticks around, would be beside myself not being able to read the morning paper with my cup of coffee
EddieS'04
In Memoriam 1950-2022
That is sad. This is happening all over for years. In the big cities the big dog buying out their competition. In Houston Hurst(Houston Chronicle), bought out the raw paper supplier. The Houston Post couldnt afford the hike in raw paper price. Thus went out of bussines.
George T
Well-Known Member
Yea, today was the last day. How sad, I live in Denver but I get the Denver Post anyways, except I think that I got Rocky Mountain on Saturdays. Ohh well too late for that now.
Really sad though
Really sad though
Dan Chatten
Active Member
Maybe if the reporting was more "Fair and balanced" they might survive? All the lib papers are having issues, NYT's and Bos Globe. Hummm.... I wonder why?
Teri Reed
Member
I would have to agree with DanC.
I stopped subscribing to the paper years ago because I couldn't stand the negative and one-sided views.
I grant you that the internet isn't any better in those areas now but at least I can read different views and opinions and facts to gain my own opinion.
I stopped subscribing to the paper years ago because I couldn't stand the negative and one-sided views.
I grant you that the internet isn't any better in those areas now but at least I can read different views and opinions and facts to gain my own opinion.
Bill V
Well-Known Member
Umm...sure...whatever you want to think....
And just how are all the "fair and balanced" newspapers doing? Oh wait, that's right--the conservatives don't think such a thing exists. :blink::wacko:
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
Maybe so, there are many prominent newspapers throughout the country that are well-documented to be left-leaning, and they're either going under, or about to do so. Their subscriptions have plummeted, largely because folks are tired of their non-objective, biased "reporting". Prime examples are the afore-mentioned New York Times and Boston Globe, the Seattle Post-Intellingencer, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution among others.
This is the same reason that ratings for almost every incarnation of the NBC news organization (both broadcast and cable) are in the toilet. They lean so obviously far to the left in their "reporting", and like the newspapers, folks are wise to it and don't want to hear it. Same could be said about CNN and CBS News, 'cause their ratings stink also.
You don't hear about ratings or subscription/circulation problems from news media outlets like the Washington Times, New York Post, or Fox News. Now I'm not saying that they're totally "fair and balanced". Sure, they're probably a little more to the right of center. But they're doing well, so wouldn't that speak to what folks really want to read/hear?
Bill V
Well-Known Member
TrainTrac, the Times and Post are having subscription/circulation decreases, just like everyone else.
The fact is that the situation with the newspaper industry has nothing to do with liberal/conservative/left/right/etc. That's like saying that the reason so few typewriters are being manufactured these days is because they were used to type up liberal propaganda. The decline in newspapers (and typewriters) is all about technological advancements causing that particular medium to gradually move towards obsolescence.
The fact is that the situation with the newspaper industry has nothing to do with liberal/conservative/left/right/etc. That's like saying that the reason so few typewriters are being manufactured these days is because they were used to type up liberal propaganda. The decline in newspapers (and typewriters) is all about technological advancements causing that particular medium to gradually move towards obsolescence.
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
I wasn't aware of their problems. I referenced the others because their problems have been very prominent news stories lately. I believe you're right about the print-versions of the large papers not being able to compete with advancements in technology (i.e. on-line news). It's damn hard for a print paper to compete with on-line news outlets that can have a story available seconds after it occurs.
However, I still think that "liberal/conservative/left/right/etc" bias has something to do with it. Maybe not so much with print news, but more so with broadcast media. Ratings statistics seem to point to this. Fox News continually trounces CNN, MSNBC and CNN in the ratings in just about every time slot. NBC News consistently finishes last in the ratings. And then there's talk radio: Rush Limbaugh is a ratings powerhouse nation-wide, and just about every other "conservative" radio show scores high ratings, while most of the "liberal" radio shows get pounded. Air America was a miserable failure. Heck, they had to pay stations just to take their programming. About the only "liberal" radio talk show host that has been somewhat successful is Ed Schultz.
Bill V
Well-Known Member
TrainTrac, Regarding the radio news, the information I've heard (and I'll grant that I don't know the source of this, and therefore can't speak to the bias of it--but it makes a lot of sense to me), many feel that that speaks more to the type of individual who would be likely to listen to a medium like AM radio. It's definitely an older, whiter, and more conservative group--so it's logical that the conservative talkers would find more success there than the liberal ones.
Regarding the televised news, my personal feeling is that this is likely a case of Fox having a virtual monopoly among viewers who are seeking a more conservative tilt to their news reporting than either the middle-of-the-road or left-leaning news outlets tend to give, while among the rest of the networks (both cable and broadcast), there's a splitting of the audience. And if you look at it from that perspective--CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and HLN, when combined, are substantially beating Fox News. And that doesn't even yet include the broadcast news outlets, which (as "liberal" media per the claims of Fox supporters) drastically increase the margin.
Cable news
February 2009
MTWTFSS 08:00P - 11:00P
Fox News 2,404,000
v
CNN 1,156,000
MSNBC 949,000
CNBC 310,000
Headline News 670,000
Total of the "liberal" cable channels CNN/MSNBC/CNBC/HLN--3,085,000
Broadcast news
Average viewership for week of 2/16-2/22
NBC--9,988,000
ABC--8,406,000
CBS--6,730,000
Total average viewership for the "liberal" broadcast networks--25,124,000
Total average viewership of the "liberal" newscasts (cable and broadcast): 28,209,000
Total average viewership of the "conservative" newscasts (cable and broadcast): 2,404,000
Who was it again that you said is getting trounced?
Don't get me wrong--I realize that this goes, in large part, to what type of people watch broadcast vs. cable news, rather than what people are necessarily looking for in the quality of their news reporting. But that's the exact point I was making about AM radio as well.
Regarding the televised news, my personal feeling is that this is likely a case of Fox having a virtual monopoly among viewers who are seeking a more conservative tilt to their news reporting than either the middle-of-the-road or left-leaning news outlets tend to give, while among the rest of the networks (both cable and broadcast), there's a splitting of the audience. And if you look at it from that perspective--CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and HLN, when combined, are substantially beating Fox News. And that doesn't even yet include the broadcast news outlets, which (as "liberal" media per the claims of Fox supporters) drastically increase the margin.
Cable news
February 2009
MTWTFSS 08:00P - 11:00P
Fox News 2,404,000
v
CNN 1,156,000
MSNBC 949,000
CNBC 310,000
Headline News 670,000
Total of the "liberal" cable channels CNN/MSNBC/CNBC/HLN--3,085,000
Broadcast news
Average viewership for week of 2/16-2/22
NBC--9,988,000
ABC--8,406,000
CBS--6,730,000
Total average viewership for the "liberal" broadcast networks--25,124,000
Total average viewership of the "liberal" newscasts (cable and broadcast): 28,209,000
Total average viewership of the "conservative" newscasts (cable and broadcast): 2,404,000
Who was it again that you said is getting trounced?
Don't get me wrong--I realize that this goes, in large part, to what type of people watch broadcast vs. cable news, rather than what people are necessarily looking for in the quality of their news reporting. But that's the exact point I was making about AM radio as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nelson Atwell
Well-Known Member
Think about it. The average newspaper subscriber is older and conservative. Younger people use the internet for their news. The newspapers have two issues. One, their older subscribers are dying off, and two, their older subscribers are turning off, that is they have become tired of readin all the slanted news and are ending their subscriptions.
Finally, advertisers are leaving, because the internet is a better and cheaper way to get their message out. I can't tell you the last time I bought a newspaper. It has been years I know...perhaps almost 10 years.
Finally, advertisers are leaving, because the internet is a better and cheaper way to get their message out. I can't tell you the last time I bought a newspaper. It has been years I know...perhaps almost 10 years.
I have a subscription to my local paper (The Tallahassee Democrat) for one reason and one reason only- because the cost of my subscription is less than the amount of money I save using the coupons I cut out each Sunday.
For news, I go to the Internet. By the time it shows up in printed form, it's dated. That's just the way the world is. Nothing conservative or liberal about it.
For news, I go to the Internet. By the time it shows up in printed form, it's dated. That's just the way the world is. Nothing conservative or liberal about it.
Bill V
Well-Known Member
Piro, that's my situation too. We only get the Sunday paper, and we only get that for the coupons and ad inserts.
Bill V,
We had a weekend-only subscription (Sunday-only wasn't offered) until they called up one day and said they were upgrading it to an all-week subscription for the same price. I told them I never read the paper during the week, but they said they were upgrading all of their weekend subscribers.
Now, there's only one logical reason for them to do that- to artificially inflate readership numbers. And why would they do that? So they can charge advertisers more for ad space.
Newspapers are desperate, and they're fighting a losing battle. Instead of focusing on the physical medium, they need to look at the valuable services they still offer (local coverage, investigative reporting, etc.) and find a way to deliver those the way people want them in 2009- via the web.
We had a weekend-only subscription (Sunday-only wasn't offered) until they called up one day and said they were upgrading it to an all-week subscription for the same price. I told them I never read the paper during the week, but they said they were upgrading all of their weekend subscribers.
Now, there's only one logical reason for them to do that- to artificially inflate readership numbers. And why would they do that? So they can charge advertisers more for ad space.
Newspapers are desperate, and they're fighting a losing battle. Instead of focusing on the physical medium, they need to look at the valuable services they still offer (local coverage, investigative reporting, etc.) and find a way to deliver those the way people want them in 2009- via the web.
Bill V
Well-Known Member
Yeah, we got that offer too--but we declined it. A daily newspaper would literally be going straight into our recycling bin every day without even being opened.
