And Now For Something Completely Different . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 07:04:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

If you were the National Society of Newspaper Columnists, who would you like to have as a speaker at your conference? If you chose Bill O'Reilly, you hit the nail on the head. And O'Reilly provided his keen insight to the opinionmakers' convention and was right on point with them. He lectured on the news side of the operation:

O'Reilly contended that many newspapers are losing circulation because they've allowed the "liberal" ideology of their editorial pages to "bleed into news coverage" -- despite, he said, there being a greater number of "traditional conservatives" than liberals in the American population. The result? "Audiences are estranged from most major newspapers," O'Reilly told the columnist attendees. "They hate you. When someone hates you, they're not going to give you your money."

Honestly, any group that invites O'Reilly to speak at their gathering deserves what they get.

< The Times Responds to Edwards Article Criticism | Elizabeth Edwards Affirms Support for Gay Marriage >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

And Now For Something Completely Different . . . | 44 comments (44 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

i'd have tried to get (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by cpinva on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 07:15:34 PM EST

bill clinton or al gore, either of whom would be far more interesting to listen to than mr. o'reilly.

this probably, in no small part, explains why i'm not a newspaper columnist. ok, there is that talent thing, and actually having something to say that more than my cat wants to read.

aside from those minor details....................

Did they (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 07:58:10 PM EST

really expect anything different? How masochistic of them.

Who HIRES this clown act? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:51:22 AM EST

How on earth does O'Reilly ever get a speaking gig? It's not like you don't know what to expect, a bloviating moron with delusions of adequacy and a history of sexual predation.

I think a speaker should know more than I do about SOME GODDAMN THING, and I question rewarding unrepentent stalkers.

I don't get... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by desertswine on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:47:14 AM EST

my local paper because its a right wing rag.

et al (1.00 / 1) (#2)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 07:55:02 PM EST

cpinva - Fire the cat. ;-)

Big Tent - Why is circulation falling??? I mean, given that results speak... doesn't it appear that O'Reilly has a point??

Circulationhas been falling since 1922 (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:29:45 PM EST

BTD (1.00 / 1) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:41:47 PM EST

Didn't know that.

Do you have a link??

BTW - I assume you are speaking of:

Total circulation.
Can you explain the rapid fall off of the past few years.

Here's (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 09:32:44 PM EST

the link. Show some initiative and do some homework.


edger (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:42:46 PM EST

Show some common sense and remember the basic Internet point.

You make the claim, you prove the point.

Beyond that I see you continue your dumb, useless and pointless comments in an effort to appear intelligent and, at the same time, suck up to Big Tent.

Have a nice day...

BTW - Speaking of reserach.. have you got some more dynamic proof that Bush, etc., new about the 9/11 attacks and did nothing???

BTW - Answer the question. Do you or don't you??


Ask Rudy. (5.00 / 0) (#14)
by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:51:02 PM EST

He made the claim. He'll have to prove it. Has he got your vote? Maybe he's an idiot.


edger (1.00 / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 08:32:24 AM EST

Why don't you give us some more Lew Rockwell?

You also quoted him, and seem desperate to forget that fact.

Do you or don't you believe, edger??

It is a simple questiom.


Listen Rudy (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Edger on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 09:13:32 AM EST

I don't know how many times you need the same question answered. If you want to be a leader of men instead of mice you'll have to be a little bit quicker on the uptake that you've so far demonstrated.

But if it's not sinking in there's very little I or anyone else can do for you.

I tried my best to convince everyone else that you're not as intellectually compromised as BTD and 75% of the world believes you are, but I've come to the conclusion that I was wrong.

I gave you all the benefit of the doubt I could. Obviously it was unwarranted. So be it. I've been wrong before. I will be again, I'm certain.


Edger (1.00 / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:55:35 PM EST

So the answer is yes.


Glad you finally see it. (none / 0) (#35)
by Edger on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:59:46 PM EST

Rudy is an idiot. What took you so long?


: After all. (5.00 / 0) (#36)
by Edger on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:03:02 PM EST

He couldn't have been telling the truth. He's Rudy...

It was a joke with a point (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:09:57 PM EST

1992 was the first year of commercial radio.

But here is a bit of an explanation:

Newspaper circulation is in decline.
The root problems go back to the late 1940s, when the percentage of Americans reading newspapers began to drop. But for years the U.S. population was growing so much that circulation kept rising and then, after 1970, remained stable.
That changed in 1990 when circulation began to decline in absolute numbers.
And the problem now appears to be more than fewer people developing the newspaper habit. People who used to read every day now read less often. Some people who used to read a newspaper have stopped altogether.
Today, just more than half of Americans (54 percent) read a newspaper during the week, somewhat more (62 percent) on Sundays, and the number is continuing to drop.1
Overall, some 55 million newspapers are sold each day, 59 million on Sunday.
At the same time, the number of newspapers in the country has been on a steady decline for even longer, dropping nearly 1 percent a year for now two decades to 1,457 in 2002.2
Where are readers going? It is impossible to say fully. Some people may be getting news online, some perhaps from cable television. Some may be opting out of traditional news sources. Others may be sharing copies of a paper among multiple readers. Many people now read newspapers only occasionally, a couple days a week, but no longer everyday. Much of the loss came from people no longer reading afternoon papers. Whatever it is, these people are not paying everyday for the journalism produced by newspapers, even if they are reading it in other outlets such as online.

HEre is a question for you, why are O'Reilly's ratings dropping precipitously?


BTD (1.00 / 0) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:47:19 PM EST

Interesting. I have heard that theory before... Of course the population was expanding after 1970...

BTW - Why no link???

BTW - I have no real idea as to why O'Reilly's audience is shrinking, growing or remaining stable??
Can you tell me why I should care??

Do you??

BTW - Are you denying that the drop has been sharp for the LAT, NYT, Boston Globe, MN Star-Tribune?? And these have lede to sharp cutbacks??


Jim (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 08:26:32 AM EST

Your unconcern for O'Reilly's precipitous drop in ratings puts the lie to your "concern" for an explanation of circulation declines.

I knew it of course.


BTD (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 09:25:03 AM EST

I see that you are again changing the subject, which was O'Reilly's claim that newspapers are suffering circulation declines.

Supposedly this is from the news coverage being infected by the Left wingers from the editorial page. I opined that, based on results, O'Reilly has a point.

You come back with a one line claim, followed by an interesting quote but no link. Which I asked for and you didn't provide. Which is a shame, because I thought the quote had some good points and I wanted to compare it to my own "theories."

So what do you do? Accuse me to being concerned over O'Reilly...

What a debater you are.

But since you brought the subject up, I have long opined that the talking heads on TV are "entertainers" and will be gone when they cease to amuse us. That includes O'Reilly and Rosie, Limbaugh and Franken....

I think the newspapers are losing readers for several reasons. First they are losing the fringe buyers. The sports nut now has ESPN and Sports center.. The movie buff can see revews on TV and the Internet.., etc... Int'l/national news is covered 24/7 on TV and radio. People don't need a newspaper except for local things, and most of your regional smaller newspapers aren't being hit so hard because they provide a product that is not available 24/7. Local news and advertising.

Secondly, 99% of the MSM news from Iraq is bad news. Forgetting about whether or not that is an accurate picture, a steady diet of bad news turns people off and they just say, to heck with this and they stop buying. So yes, the anti-war position on the editorial page is reflected in the wire services' stories.

So thanks for the reasoned debate. I just keep forgetting that your intention is to just bash the other side....


Jim (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:15:52 AM EST

Your unconcern for the reasoning is obvious. You want to agree with O'Reilly's prescription. Do so by all means.

But if you think O'Reilly's rating drop is irrelevant, then you prove, what I already know, that you are not interested in the why of the circulation drop and the why my question about O'Reilly's ratings is relevant.

O'Reilly claims it is due to liberal bias. IS it your view then that PRIOR to 1990 there was no liberal bias in the Media?

Is it your view that O'Reilly's ratings drop is due to his liberal bias?

I am not debating you on the subject because you don't come here to discuss the actual WHY of newspaper circulation drops which, as I have pointed out to you, did not START in 1990.

I happen to know a lot about the subject as I worked in the Media business in the past - and on the business side.

But you don;t deserve any respect here as you are insincer in your "discussion."

I will not humor your fake concern.


BTD (1.00 / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:30:27 PM EST

O'Reilly is not in in the newspaper business.

A drop in his ratings, for whatever reason, could:

Have nothing to do with the newspaper drop.
Be the result of the same root cause.

BTW - I am sure there were many people in the buggy business who would have told you that those horseless carriages were not here to stay.

In closing....

You always make some off the wall comment that you are going to withhold some type of approval...

As one adult to another, could you try and understand that I don't desire/need your "approval."


Act like an adult (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:33:06 PM EST

and we can try to have a conversation.

You have acted like a child throughout this thread.

Unloike many here Jim, my default position is to take your comments seriously.

Then I read them.


: BTD (1.00 / 0) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:27:39 PM EST

There is nothing in my comments that are childish. I just agreed with O'Reilly and provided some additional thoughts and asked you for a link.
You offerred no response beyond some snarks.
If that be "adult," then heaven help us.

Craig's List (none / 0) (#23)
by Peaches on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:25:16 AM EST

Peaches (1.00 / 0) (#28)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:33:38 PM EST

Good point for those who do the net... There is still a large number who do not.


From my understanding (none / 0) (#29)
by Peaches on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:35:44 PM EST

A huge source of revenue has recently dried up for most newspapers through the local classified ads.


Peaches (1.00 / 0) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:33:36 PM EST

Well, ad revenue will follow circulation since ad placers will be based on a percent of the total.

That assumes no price increases and nothing from a societal view that would cause an increase in the number of people selling personal items.

BTW - I just had a fresh tomato and onion sandwich ..one side slathered with mayo the other mustard..
How's your crops coming??


: I guess, (none / 0) (#33)
by Peaches on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:43:24 PM EST

it is the chicken and egg argument as to whether lower ad revenues lead to lower subscription rates or vice-versa. I think the internet ia a new technology that newspapers failed to compete with or adjust to. I also think that the media consolidation of major newspapers has lead to less local coverage and does not cater to localities, leading to lower subscription rates.
My garden is fabulous, although tomatoes are still green on the vine. Onions I have been eating for several weeks, though and I've been eating a lot of broccoli, cauliflower and Cabbage lately. Lots of greens and flowers are starting to bloom. A glorious time of year, although we could use a rain in the next day or two.

You mean 1922, of course ;-) (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:44:12 PM EST

I thought you might be referring to radio.


What evidence do you have (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 09:02:03 PM EST

(other than Oh Really?'s bald assertion) of the print media allowing liberal bias into its reporting?

2ndly, even if this were true, given American are moderate to liberal, why would it cause a decline in print readers?

Finally, the truth of the matter goes back to our discussion of 9-11 and why we haven't been attacked on US soil since- as you know I stopped eating watermelon on 9/12/01 and we haven't been attacked on US soil since then. The downside of this sacrifice on my part is during this same time period the print media's circulation has fallen. Its a small price to pay actually.

You see, if she weighs as much as a duck, she is made of wood and therefore....

Thanks Molly Bloom (5.00 / 0) (#8)
by squeaky on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:03:35 PM EST

Hadn't seen that in a while. It made me laugh and is exactly what we seem up against. Finally some logic ppj can relate to.


MB (1.00 / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:49:20 PM EST

So circulation is falling because you eat watermelon..

Makes as much sense as 99% of the other stuff you write.


No sense of humor or reading comprehension ability (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 07:20:53 AM EST

MB (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 09:25:55 AM EST

I can say the same about you.

Didn't like the comeback, eh??


As you Like It (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:38:47 AM EST

Reading comprehension
You said:

I indicated in an example of false cause:

Circulation has fallen off because I stopped eating watermelon
We've not had any further attacks after 9/11 because I stopped eating watermelon.

On a more serious note:
You've not responded to the point that you have zero evidence (other than Oh Really?'s blathering) that circulation is falling off due to "liberal bias." You and Oh Really? could do with some basic logic courses which I tried to illustrate with humor.

Even if Oh Really?'s premise is true (liberal bias is bleeding into news coverage) given that the majority of Americans are moderate to liberal, why would that cause a decline in circulation?

MB (1.00 / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:21:26 PM EST

You snarky comment is an old debate trick, make an outrageous comment and act like it is meaningful to the discussion at hand.

You know that what we have here are opinions. That includes O'Reilly and this blog.

I gave several reasons why I think circulation is falling that have nothing to do with Left wing editorials.

As to the majority being liberal, perhaps. What they aren't is hard core Left. Remember, I am a liberal myself.

Also, I didn't mention the Internet. It is a factor, I just don't know how big of one. I believe that the Net is not as important as the bloggers like to think it is. May it become so??
I don't know. I haven't seen or looked for growth figures in a few years, but I just gave a quick look and:

Young people largely drove the early stages of Internet growth in the U.S. But in the last four years, most new growth in Web adoption came from people aged 55 and up, according to a survey conducted by International Demographics.

That would lead me to believe that:

1. Age 55 and up, I believe, are/were large newspaper readers. As they become net users they drop away from some of the newspapers, perhaps all.

I know in the mid '90s when I lived in Denver we were a 4 daily newspaper household plus the Sunday Times. As I used more and more of the net, three of them disappeared including the Sunday Times.. (I did keep the Denver Post's Sunday edition.)

2. Older people are more conservative, more apt to support the military. So yes, what they see as attacks on the military will have negative effects.

So I would say that when they read the editorial page and then read the front page they see much of the same "attitude."

And ask any salesman. Angry people don't give you their money.


Nice try, no cigar (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 04:35:46 PM EST

You said at 2 above:

Why is circulation falling??? I mean, given that results speak... doesn't it appear that O'Reilly has a point??

What was Billo's thesis?

'Reilly contended that many newspapers are losing circulation because they've allowed the "liberal" ideology of their editorial pages to "bleed into news coverage"

Since you are trying to play 3 card monte with what Billo said, and what you said, I gather you have Zero Evidence to support Billo's thesis that you endorsed.

Give it up, call it a day and go study the logical fallacy known as false cause.

MB (1.00 / 0) (#40)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 04:59:57 PM EST

Since when does agreeing with one point of an argument mean that you can not note that their can be multiple causes??

Let us face the facts squarely. You wouldn't agree with anything I wrote because, simply, of who you are.

And I again note that if hard evidence was required for 99% of what is advanced on the web then the web would be reduced by 99%.

And if anyone actually had hard evidence they would get themselves to the publishers and get themselves very rich.


Miracles never cease! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 07:14:51 PM EST

Case closed, Jim admits he's got nothing! The age of miracles has not ended.

MB (1.00 / 0) (#42)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 09:50:52 PM EST

And as usual Molly has to claim victory and retreat.

But hey.... that's the surrender party for you..


Still got nothing? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:34:33 AM EST

: Never had anything. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by jondee on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:42:53 AM EST

Corporate Profits (none / 0) (#37)
by squeaky on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:49:27 PM EST

I thought O'Reilly was a comedian. More evidence that entertainment and the news are the same today.

Much as the drop in attendance and (none / 0) (#39)
by oculus on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 04:45:26 PM EST

subscriptions for classical music concerts, I think the decline in newspaper sales and subscriptions is a generational thing. Younger people probably get their "news" from TV and/or Internet. Ad revenue of newspapers declines when readership declines. Giving away the product on line isn't helpful either, atlhough I'm glad some newspapers do permit free on-line access. Also, seems like lots of people prefer the condensed version offered by bloggers--snip--snip.