Republic Circulation Tumbles Again

Circulation statistics are out again and it's looking bleak. 

Blame the big metro papers -- again. The Audit Bureau of Circulations released the spring numbers this morning, revealing more plunges in daily and Sunday circulation.

As in the past, the losses are steep while gains are minimal. This is the fifth consecutive reporting period that overall newspaper circulation experienced big drops, despite easing comparisons. For all papers reporting daily circulation, the Newspaper Association of America said that daily circ fell 2.1% while Sunday tumbled 3.1%.

The Republic's circulation dropped a little over 1%, but remember that it is the paper of record in the fastest growing state in the nation.

The Republic's troubles are nothing compared to the Dallas Morning news.  The Morning news (or I should say Mourning News) lost more than 14% of its circulation in the last six months alone.   Long time Arizona political junkies will remember that Keven Ann Wiley left the Republic in order to run the editorial pages of the Morning news.  Now the paper is about half the size it was when she took it over.  Golly, who would have thought that a left wing agenda, shallow writing style and sophomoric analytical skills would turn off readers? 

Comments

[Michelle Davidson]

Well - at our house we cancelled the Republic because of their right-wing slant, shorter and shorter news stories and reduced space on the op/ed pages, and their dismissals of good writers like Richard Ruelas and Jon Talton. And since Scutari and Sherwood left the Insider has lacked the sarcasm it needs.

[elinor stickney]

I cancelled the paper once but missed the crossword puzzles. I just do them and don't bother reading the old news. In contrast to the previous poster, I think the Republic is slanted to the left. The Washington Post used to be my hometown paper and, compared with the Arizona Republic, it is very conservative.

[Mark]

Michelle - you probably think FDR was a right-winger? If the Republic has a right-wing slant for you then what do you prefer... Pravda?

You know I am getting sick and tired of the left acting like bias is subjective. It is not. The bias at the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and our own Republic (to name just a very few) are slanted HEAVILY to the left. This is not my opinion - it's a fact! To state otherwise is the height of idiocy.

[The Klute]

Question: At what point will everyone stop making "Pravda" references? Will it only happen when everyone born before 1986 is dead?

I mean, I understood it in the 80s when conservatives made the references... The Soviet Union was actually around then, so "Pravda on the Potomac" and "Isvestia on the Hudson" made sense (in the insane John Birch sort of way, I guess).

But Pravda stopped publishing when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991... Can we please think outside the freakin' box and come up with some new insults? Why not use "Granma" (Cuba's newspaper) or whatever the hell North Korea publishes on a daily basis.

Or better yet, go classical. Use references from "1984" or "Fahrenheit 451" - it'll accomplish the same thing and won't make you seem mired in a land of pastel suits and DeLoreans.

[Travis]

Funny,I can't think of anything more tiresome than listening to youth boo-hoo about how mean and irritating the "older generation" is.

[Ray G]

Yes, let us remember how fast Arizona is growing, and the paper of record is shrinking despite the dramatic rise in potential readership.

Those are readers who haven't been around the water cooler long enough to even be biased. They're simply picking it up, and well, . . . not picking it up again.

[The Klute]

Travis,

"Funny,I can't think of anything more tiresome than listening to youth..."

"Youth".

You just made my day. Especially after being called "Sir" earlier when asked for directions.

[netrootsdemocrat]

I, too, no longer read the Arizona Republic because it is clearly too far to the right. Those who think it skews left probably would vote for Le Pen if they lived in France.

[Craig]

Actually, the Rep used to skew 'hardcore conservative'; now, it skews 'corporate'.

Think 'pre-Gannett takeover' and 'post-Gannett takeover."

Now, that means it is mostly conservative, but they'll go liberal on an issue if there is more profit in it for them or other corporations.

[Framer]

Pravda is still around, although perhaps under different ownership, or at least it was when I lived in Russia ten years ago. I believe that it still leaned pretty far to the left, although my Russian reading comprehension was somewhat spotty.

[x4mr]

I find myself a little surprised that the online versions of the newspapers have not been mentioned. Have you factored the explosion on online newspaper websites that provide the same content for free?

I read the papers every morning online. All of the articles are available with a lot less advertising. I can scan a dozen newspapers in half an hour including CNN, MSNBC, FOX, you name it.

Hardcopy will never disappear, but it will morph. The true book, cover to cover, will probably survive for many, many years. There is something permanent about the book on the shelf.

The daily newspaper? Hmmm.

And you think I'm going to buy the Sunday paper when I can read it for free and click to my heart's content?

Every Sunday I check out your favorite, the New York Times, in detail.

[Ann]

We continue to subscribe; my husband likes the sports section. I used to be a cover to cover reader, everyday. Now I might skim the headlines a couple of times a week. We began a couple of years ago to depend on other sources for real information. When the Wall Street Journal went to home delivery we realized the Republic was about a day behind the big news and then everything was wire service and the local stuff is so very slanted to the left that it is insulting...so who needs the Republic? Sports fans, I guess.

[AZRepCritix]

The smartest move the Republic ever made was to fire Jon Talton and demote Richard Ruelas to feature writer. Getting your hate column taken away and geting stuck doing features is a full-scale neutering, Gannett-style.

As we well know, Talton had one basic column (Phoenix sucks, move to Denver) and one basic blog (everything right of Trotsky sucks). Ruelas had one basic column and blog (whites are evil, illegals are gold-hearted freedom fighters).

Now, if there was actually any content to the paper, I'd consider subscribing again!

[Joe]

I get it, the Republic is sinking, it sucks, blah, blah, blah.

There is an embattled incumbent in CD 1 that might make our state a national political playround when he resigns as well as a contentious budget making its way through our legislature. The U.S. AG is on life support, and I am sure there is something stupid Hillary said you could write about. Yet, you are still whinning about the Republic. WE ALL GET IT!

Did the paper boy kick your puppy or steal your ice cream cone when you were a kid?

[Ann]

The subscription numbers didn't take a tumble recently; this has been going on for sometime. The ability for the public to have access to reporting of the news and not analysis of events is the topic.

Every year there is a contentious budget in the legislature; somewhere under every administration someone is hanging on by the skin of their teeth (in the last half of an 8 year cycle it is almost guaranteed) and Arizona can get in line with the embattled incumbents of both parties. Now if we just had a decent daily print publication to give us the NEWS about those things and NOT the analysis based on editorial positioning.

[John]

"Well - at our house we cancelled the Republic because of their right-wing slant, shorter and shorter news stories and reduced space on the op/ed pages, and their dismissals of good writers like Richard Ruelas and Jon Talton. And since Scutari and Sherwood left the Insider has lacked the sarcasm it needs."

Very well put - and in addition, you could mention that local business stories read like press releases and national and international feature stories are usually reprints from the WSJ and NY Times, sometimes published up to a week later.

[Mark]

No John it was not nicely put. This is not merely left to our opinions. The Republic does not have a right-wing slant. It has a blatant left-wing slant. To say otherwise is a lie. We, on the right, so often refuse to challenge the left when they so often lie.

The worst part is their lies become dogma as was evident at the John McCain rally on Saturday. I spoke with about 20 of the 40 or so protestors. They ALL (I could not find a single one who didn't) believe that 9/11 was done by the Bush admin or Israelis.

Klute - Pravda still exists and furthermore, made the point I wanted it to make. You clearly got it. Although I'm sure you know the names of tons of Communist publications, I admit ignorance in that area.

[The Klute]

Yes, Pravda still exists, but of course, not in the same form - it's no longer a state-run mouthpiece for propaganda.

And yes it made the point, and my point was that it lacks creativity. Hell, even Yakov Smirnov has changed his bit.

And as for knowing Communist publications, you're absolutely right. You found me out. I'm Lavrentia Beria back from the dead! So hide your stock options and your vodka because I'm here to kick it Bolshevik-style!

Whatever, dude.

[netrootsdemocrat]

Mark, you should take a political science course and find out the true definition of what socialism and communism means. Come to think of it, so do the rest of your GOP cohorts. Socialism is the nationalisation of the means of production. Communism melds socialism to political control over the citizenry.

I, as well as most of the rest of the progressive far-left in the United States am for a well-regulated social welfare state. This means the federal government should regulate industry for fairness, more money for existing programs, as well as a few new programs like national health insurance (including dental and mental care), and national day care. Yes, this includes higher taxes.

[Framer]

netsrootdemocrat,

Except that socialism cannot exist without political control over the citizenry. Who pays these taxes? People out of the goodness of their hearts? The socialism that you and many dream of is only possible if everyone involved signs off on it. Otherwise it IS about government control, and eventually leads to decay.

Again, I lived in Russia. I have seen what socialism taken to its very end looks like. I love the Russian people, but detest what happened to them as a result of "the federal government regulating industry for fairness."

I do respect you for having the vision however. Fortunately, it is possible to pack up, move to San Francisco, and live that dream. The view is quite nice there. We'll go ahead and leave the light on for you when you come to your senses and return.

[jamcool]

Here is your typical daily Repulsive...

1.Drought bad
2.Bush bad
3."Migrants" good
4.A typo festival
5.The same lousy article showing up several times in any given week.
6.Mostly rip-and-read articles from AP/NY Times/WaPo/Al Jazeera
7.Microscopic editorial page filled with indecisive mush
8.Thinks "Arizona" stops at Anthem and Sun City

Of course the so-called "libertarian" East Valley "Buffoon" isn't much better

[ron]

Who said that 'good news' sells - newspapers and even blogs survive off the bad news - who goes to a NASCAR race to watch an' accident' free race or a hockey game without a fight. If the AZ Republic was succeeding and growing that wouldn't be news - except for maybe WSJ and stockholders.

Writing about the sun shining every day doesn't sell newspapers or blogs - but talking about the drought might.

I do agree that "Arizona" Republic is a misnomer.

[Mark]

netrootsdemocrat - I am a political science and history major and would be happy to correct your definitions and better explain socialism and communism to you.

In the first place, Socialism is a polical system that places ultimate control of production, distribution and capitol in the hands of a centralized governmental authority.

Communism is an economic system where all property and labor are controlled by a centralized governmental authority.

In socialist countries people can own private property and still have the freedom to choose their own career. I would recommend you read Locke or Robert Nozick to better understand why Socialism will ALWAYS ultimately fail. The problem with the left is that they fail to properly understand human nature.

Klute - dude - I'll try harder to be creative just for you!

[netrootsdemocrat]

Mark,

Well, then, by your own definitions, the national Democratic Party is not "socialist." However, if I had my way, yes, the United States would be socialist. The socialist dream has never had a REAL chance to work. NOne of the brutal, repressive regimes of the USSR, PRC, Cuba, NK, or anywhere else adopted a socialist economic system that also enshrined civil liberty guarantees and democracy in its constitution. And do not tell me that democracy and socialism cannot go hand in hand. That would be right wing talking point opinion, not fact. One is purely an economic system. If you disagree, then perhaps you better go back to school. Also, please refrain from being so condescending to someone whom you do not know, nor know what educational background that person has. Thanks.

[Ray G]

Considering the fact, socialism in the larger sense doesn't work because it runs contrary to human nature.

Free market systems fare far greater precisely because they work with human nature inasmuch they do not try to change or ignore that nature.

It was Rousseau who held the high-minded notion of the state getting the children at a young enough age when they were presumably in a state of tabula rasa (blank slate). He thought that avarice, ambition, etc could be kept out of them, if the state had them young enough.

Of course, these things are endemic to our nature, and not simply inserted after birth.

Likewise, socialism as a whole relies for its success upon human nature being maleable, which it clearly is not.

Although history itself will be enough proof for most, I can easily prove it even to the likes of netroot.

Tell me, why have all efforts at socialism, on the national level, failed? We know that certain figures and nations simply have not done it right, and that murder and "cleansing" are not inherently part of the socialist dogma.

But what has actually interfered with socialism working?

[Aaron]

I don't wish to engage in the slant debate, because I think people are thinking way harder than the newspaper folks quite frankly. Having said that, I believe declining readership is mostly just a function of the times we are living in. We can read so much online it simply makes sense that readership would drop.

Can't we all just get along? Don't make me join a unity ticket with Quelland...there is only so much in life I can take;)

[Joe G]

Ah, I love a benign socialist. After telling people where they will work, how much they will work, increasing their taxes, decreasing their income, determining their housing, limiting their choices, selecting their occupations, choosing their schools for them...

...after all that (and more), you're going to miraculously back off and offer "freedoms" that I can use when I like. Forgive me if I note that the above were freedoms previously enjoyed, and if you'll take away that you'll stop at nothing.

You can call us whatever you'd like, but socialism goes hand-in-hand with oppressive control. It has to. By their very nature, humans seek freedom and are entrepreneurial.

And the only way to prevent those actions that don't require govt approval requires policemen and informants and jails.

[BobH]

An interesting side point on the newspaper circulation matter (if we might return temporarily to the topic) is that the EV Trib is one of the top papers in the country in terms of paid on-line subscriptions (just behind the NY Times):

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003579008

The Republic does not show up on the list.

I'm of the opinion that on-line circulation will never amount to much, except for sources with specialized content (e.g., WSJ), but it still is interesting.

[Mark]

Netroot, I will follow your lead when it comes to being condescending.

Are Democrats socialists? Ultimately, yes they are. If given absolute power and an extremely weak opposition they will nationalize every industry they can get their hands on, institute wage and price controls, greatly limit private property rights and vastly centralize the authority of the bureaucracy. Yes, I acknowledge that many Democrats do not fit that picture but I am confident most would vote with their party on nationalizing the most essential industries.

Remember that the reason so many industries are now privatized is solely do to the fact that Reagan and his fellow Republicans made it a priority.

Can socialists be democrats (small d)? Sure and I don’t remember reading where I or anyone for that matter said they can't. However, there is an inherent problem for them. Since socialism goes against human nature all socialist governmental experiments will eventually collapse. Now the true believers who likely run the show have a dilemma. They can abandon their 'political system' or do whatever it takes to maintain it and that often means reducing or diluting democratic rights in those countries to ensure their continued power.

[The Klute]

You know, Christianity also goes against human nature. People aren't inherently good. If they were God wouldn't have carved the commandments into the side of Mt. Sinai, and Jesus' sermon on the Mount would have been: "You're doing great. Keep it up!" Should I abandon my Christian beliefs because I can't always live up to them?

Just sayin'.

[elinor stickney]

I don't know why being in "the fastest growing state" should indicate having a good paper. As a relivitely new resident of Phoenix, it amuses me greatly that Phoenix considers itself on a par with old eastern US cities. My first impression of downtown Phoenix, gleaned on a trip down Central Avenue, was that it looked like a bombed out city. Visitors, without my prodding, have said the same. In a drought stricken desert, its developers build enormous developments in the middle of the desert. It tears up all its streets on a regular basis. The "Toonerville Trolley" construction has probably ruined many small businesses. It anyone is in an enterprising mode may I suggest designing a new traffic cone or buying stock in the existing company. Phoenix must use thousands.

[Ray G]

"You know, Christianity also goes against human nature. People aren't inherently good. . . Should I abandon my Christian beliefs because I can't always live up to them?"

From a spiritual context, the human heart is indeed inherently bad.

Christianity is the name for the religion that shows man a way to overcome his natural state.

Socialism is a socio-economic theory that cannot overcome anything. For it to succeed, it must work within the contstraints of human nature, not against it. Just as any economic theory must.

Although, it is very telling that a Leftist would so glibly compare their favored economic theory to religion.

[Mark]

Just to add to or rephrase what Ray said, Christianity doesn't go against human nature, Christianity shows man that God has overcome his fallen nature for him (sinless, the cross, grace, mercy through the blood of Christ, etc.).

IMO, Christianity is the one paradigm that best accounts for human nature.

Therefore, I really dont understand your comparison to socialism.

[ron]

elinor.

I thought I was the only one who said those things about downtown Phoenix - of course, you should have come here 25 years ago when it really was a 'bombed out' downtown - some things have improved.

Meanwhile, Let's all support Central Christian Supply - it sales have dipped 40% with the light rail fiasco - Martha and staff need to stay alive - it is one of the best stores of its kind in the valley - They have the best second hand section you will find in any store.

[The Klute]

I'm not being glib at all. Christianity teaches to treat your neighbor as yourself, to take care of the less fortunate - it's under the Protestant work ethic that we turned the parabales into some sort of Horatio Alger-esque lesson about how God wants us to invest wisely.

Capitalism equals Darwinism in an economic context - survival of the fittest. Aren't social programs counter to a true Libertarian/Capitalistic model?

[The Klute]

I'm not being glib at all. Christianity teaches to treat your neighbor as yourself, to take care of the less fortunate - it's under the Protestant work ethic that we turned the parabales into some sort of Horatio Alger-esque lesson about how God wants us to invest wisely.

Capitalism equals Darwinism in an economic context - survival of the fittest. Aren't social programs counter to a true Libertarian/Capitalistic model?

[Mark]

Klute - Christianity teaches the Christian that he has certain obligations. Do not confuse individual responsibilities with the responsibilities of the state.

Our Founders created a nation based on the Christian premises that man is evil and power corrupts. Therefore societal powers must be checked and balanced by opposing factions to prevent corruption and despotism.

I'm curious, why do you believe bureaucrats are better at determining prices and wages than the law of supply and demand?

[Ray G]

Klute, netroot, et al

Christianity is a religion precisely because it is not a philosophy that one adheres to. It is the practice of one’s life being dedicated to God (leaving aside the issues of different faiths and degrees of belief).

In this dedication, human nature is overcome and man is saved. Again, leaving aside differing interpretations of how scriptural one needs to be, the Christian Bible says that only the gift of the Holy Ghost or Spirit can save a man from his natural self.

So this spiritual practice actually emphasizes the fact human nature is both irredeemable, and impossible for man to overcome without supernatural assistance.

Economic theories are not, and cannot “save” anyone or anything. Their very definition requires that they work with mankind in order to structure the most propitious economic market for man to live and operate in.

This isn’t a slam at all, but merely an attempt to properly define what is being said. Logic is really a search for truth, and in that, logic relies totally on language and its proper use and subsequently an agreement between parties on that language.

Netroot, Klute, and no doubt many others view religion not as religion properly defined, but as philosophy. That is, something to be practiced in order to enrich one’s life. But philosophy cannot “save” a man as religion purports to; it can only improve that life. I suppose a taxonomic difference might be that of a supernatural presence in one, and presumably the belief of an afterlife, whereas philosophy would be more humanistic, eschewing the supernatural and focusing on man alone.

In this mistaken view, it is easy to see why so many would view a favorite form of economic theory as religion – and unfortunately – adhere to it as vehemently.

Lastly, capitalism and libertarianism are not economic Darwinism in that they do not believe the “weakest” should fade away. Rather they know that incentives of personal liberty are the greatest impetus for man creating a truly dynamic society wherein the most people possible have the greatest amount of opportunities possible. There is no reason for government sponsored relief programs because 1) it is needed far less in a truly free market, and 2) private entities have always stepped up to help the poor. That those private entities don’t actually pay people to be out of work, many of course say that they do not do enough. But that is fodder for another thread.

[netrootsdemocrat]

As much as we may disagree, Ray G, I do respect your views and appreciate that you can engage myself and others in a coherent, friendly manner. Sometimes I do get jaded that all conservatives are fire-breathing blowhards like O'Reilly. Nice to see y'all aren't all like that.

This has been a good and interesting little discussion.

[ron]

Ray G, you wrote, "There is no reason for government sponsored relief programs because 1) it is needed far less in a truly free market, and 2) private entities have always stepped up to help the poor."

Does Chrysler qualify for a government sponsored relief program? Or Walmart? Or America West? Or the developers of the North Phoenix project? Or the auto dealerships in Glendale? If governments believed in free market economies, why is there so much corporate welfare going on?

Just curious.

[Ray G]

Ron:
"If governments believed in free market economies, why is there so much corporate welfare going on?"

Governments don't typically believe in free markets.

What you have listed are violations of the free market, not faults.

Which actually makes the point that the larger the govt, the more opaque its practices are, and the more violations against the free market - and thus our individual liberty.