I think it’s more like general interest print is no longer sustainable.

I’ve got a cash positive, niche magazine in print (www.feedfront.com).

Not true!

Our local paper (the Nugget) is doing just fine, thanks. Oh wait, did I tell you that it’s free? And available in print and online?

(Cue up the government bailouts for large market print media, it’s going to happen. Guaranteed. 100% or your money back.)

CABLE NEWS RACE
NIGHT OF MARCH 13, 2008
VIEWERS

FOXNEWS O’REILLY 2,979,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 2,280,000
FNC GRETA 1,896,000
CNN KING 1,640,000
FNC HUME 1,530,000
CNN COOPER 1,417,000
FNC SHEP 1,392,000
CNN DOBBS 1,057,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,001,000
CNNHN GRACE 605,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 507,000

CNN is poised to finish March third in the prime-time weeknight ratings behind Fox News Channel and MSNBC, the first time this has ever happened for the channel that pioneered the cable news genre nearly three decades ago.

On the newspaper side, even though The Wall Street Journal has maintained stable circulation, Ruper Murdoch recently wrote down 40 percent of his $5.5 billion purchase price for the national newspaper. According to an earnings report in February, advertising at the conservative bastion is expected to be off at least 20 percent for the year. Things apparently aren’t rosy just for those on red end of the spectrum.

I’m not sure how those numbers translate to a clear repudiation of “liberal media” or their supposed bias. But I don’t think Mr. Evil Pundit is big on facts, just personal opinions.

here’s a decent example– 17,000,000 served in march in a town of <100k (click my id above)

surely they’re not all fargoans… or even americans

Please stop pedaling that “bias” trope.

It’s audience fragmentation. It’s endless choice causing people to abandon mainline print paper. Candidly, it’s a world in which people can choose news from a range as wide as Fox News to MSNBC to, hell, the Onion.

The left blames the Times for the Iraq war because of “biased” coverage. The right blames the Times for the Obama presidency because of “biased” coverage. Probably means they’re calibrated about right – but that calibration was made for a world of limited choice – a world that no longer exists.

We still don’t “get it”. Interactive media mean not schlepping to meetings and listening to dry talks. Perhaps the schmoozing at Davos is worth something, but then, perhaps there needs to be a new mechanism devised which makes use of modern technology.

If the only time a big wig can be exposed to new people is at a meeting then something fundamental is wrong. It isn’t only the president that lives in a bubble.

Going online won’t save papers when their journalism is worthless. Why would anyone want to read them?

I see the Times has been sponsoring a series of talks, perhaps they should be looking to more live events. Look at all the money Larry Summers has been pulling down telling business leaders what they want to hear.

Could Floyd Norris or Gretchen Morgenson be turned into profit centers for the Times by appearing at corporate functions or having the Times run such things itself?

My greatest ad returns have surpringly been my vehicles (emblazened, of course) and local business meetups. Both of which are orders of magnitude cheaper. It’s hard to believe they’ve sustained themselves thus far.

None of those four daily papers could make it on their own as a standalone business. But with Sunday itself shrinking, the numbers on those loss-leader days are becoming increasingly troublesome, leading more papers to consider reducing print frequency.