The fact the WSJ is increasing its readership is not surprising. We receive both the PD and WSJ daily. The PD has shrunk to not much of a news source for our family. We are conservative and very rarely do we find any news we believe is not left of center. I would like to cancel our subscription, but my husband likes to read the sports. But even he is getting tired of the left spin of the news.

The WSJ, on the other hand, has in depth reporting of its articles. I don’t agree with all it prints, however, it generally gives you different sides of an issue. Isn’t that what GOOD JOUNNALISM is all about? THAT’S why most of the newspapers are tanking. There is nothing thoughtful or insightful in the reporting. I am weary of talking points and the PD taking everything this administration says as truth. The PD didn’t buy that line when GW was president, it shouldn’t buy that line now.

I want to know how much the health plan will REALLY cost, the REAL profit margin of insurance companies (hint: it’s 2.2%), the political affiliations of Obama’s czars and HOW THAT SHAPES OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS THEY WANT TO ENACT, how are we going to ever pay back the debt we are amassing…what will happen when the interest rates go back north of 6%…we will be under China’s thumb, studies from sources (hint: real scientists)other than Al Gore regarding global warming, etc.

WE WANT ARTICLES WITH REAL FACTS FROM MANY SOURCES! That’s why you all are losing readership. I don’t want your opinions. I want the facts. I can then make my own decisions. You are the relayer of facts, not opinions.

Oh, and by the way, were the racial comments attributed by your sports reporter to Rush Limbaugh ever proven? I didn’t think so. Shameful behavior for a professional reporter to parrot untrue statements as fact. Maybe that’s another reason newspapers hold no validity in the minds of readers.

Wow. Look at those numbers. For paper after paper, the circulation numbers are down by double or near-double digits. To some, they will see “competition from the Internet.” To me, I see repurcussions resulting from a sizable chunk of the readership being totally disgusted with the slobbering love affair the media had with a celebrity pop star left-leaning politician - many readers saw the press covering-up the socialistic tendencies of this pop star with no practical experience at running anything, let alone the whole country. Many readers (me included) are giving payback to the media the capitalistic way, with their pocketbook. Many of us are not contributing to the socialistic political agenda. We now see ourselves in a struggle to keep this corrupt incompetent government from intruding into more and more of our lives on a daily basis, and we continue to see the media as complicit in this corrupt government’s pervasive intrusions.

If you think I’m off base - this just in: Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) says Democrats are “trying on every front to increase the role of government.” (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/26/frank_we_are_trying_on_every_front_to_increase_the_role_of_government.html)

The media let Barney Frank off the hook. Those of us who pay attention are fully cognizant of Frank’s pimping for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - to the point where they were too big to fail, so when they did, they nearly brought down the government. We are fully aware of Frank’s complicity with the CRA, where, through government regulation, banks were forced to give loans banks to people unable to pay them back. Hey - those loans were backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac anyway - the banks didn’t have the risk. The media has covered that up. Now we have this same incompetent imbecile, the single person most responsible for our contry’s economic near-collapse, proposing to pervade even more of our lives. The media should be stopping him - not helping him. WHERE ARE YOU???

I love the commenting feature. It certainly confirms my suspicions about people.
Its because news is free on the internet. If I were in the industry, I’d be figuring out how to make people pay. I bet some of the folks who post on this site would pay just for the opportunity to rant in public…just a thought

I subscribe to the WSJ because it is informative, interesting and useful. The writers still practice journalism. Compare WSJ’s well-written and researched articles with those of the PD. Just look at Burwell who likely gets his facts from Google. These papers including the PD lack credibility. It sad but not unreasonable to expect these rags to fail. People can get better propaganda MSNBC and CNN and better intrigue and puff pieces from the National Inquirer and People magazine. Why would they need to buy and read these papers too?

Both ‘Grethen’ and ‘mello01′ are correct. The problem with most newspapers, including the PD, is a multi pronged attack. First, and most importantly, by the time a news paper comes out most people that read a newspaper have seen the information on 10 different internet news sites. So it’s old news. Between the green movement and the internet it won’t be long until there are no more printed newspaper. So the current papers need to figure out how to make money online. Of course this is only the first problem. Second, most news organizations are liberal. It’s a fact not an opinion. With more and more news organizations popping up (good and bad) people can get their news from an organization that either believes like they do or at the least isn’t slanting it one way or the other. Finally, because of the internet people understand what good writing is. Why would I go to the PD to get a national story when I can go to a national reporter and get a much better and well written story. This isn’t a slam on the PD necessarily it’s all local papers. If the PD writers where that great they would be in NY or LA or Boston, or the WSJ of USA Today. Of course some stay for other reasons, but not most.

So you want a business model that works, here you go. First, hire both conservative and liberal writers so you have both. The country is 50/50 so should you news staff. Second, drop the print edition and sell advertisements for the online site to cover the cost. Third, focus all of your paid reporters on regional issues. Mostly St. Louis metro area but branch out to the entire state of Missouri and Southern Illinois, even though it pains me to accept them When is the last time we saw good coverage of anything in the state that isn’t St. Louis. What is going on in Jeff City or Kansas City? Finally, since the site would be incomplete without a national section reprint national articles from national sources. Don’t waste time putting a local yahoo on the story. Pay for a real story. There you have it. Come to think of it… stop…. I’m starting a new website. Anyone want a job?

What’s the difference? The front page section actually reports REAL news and the Editorial Page is conservative. Both unlike the Post-Dispatch whose numbers are plummeting and they don’t know why.

Which part of the “liberal media” does the New York Post belong to?