Dinosaur Media Watch: US Newspaper Circulation Down 8.7%

Once again, the print media shows continuing decline in subscribers. The article below from Breitbart states that the number of people reading the news has NOT declined. The report estimates that 100 million people still read the news but they are shifting to alternate news outlets, mainly the internet for sources.

Apr 26 12:12 PM US/Eastern
By ANDREW VANACORE
AP Business Writer


NEW YORK (AP) – Circulation continues to drop at U.S. newspapers.

Figures released Monday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations show average weekday circulation fell 8.7 percent in the six months that ended March 31, compared with the same period a year earlier.

Sunday circulation fell 6.5 percent.

Neither decline was as steep as the comparable one documented in the last reporting period. From April through September of last year, average weekday circulation dropped 10.6 percent and Sunday circulation fell 7.5 percent.

Even so, the top 25 newspapers in the country showed some huge losses.

The San Francisco Chronicle’s weekday circulation dropped nearly 23 percent from the year before to 241,330.

At The Washington Post, average circulation fell 13.1 percent during the week to 578,482 and 8.2 percent to 797,679 on Sunday.

USA Today lost 13.6 percent of its circulation and averaged 1.83 million. That extended a slump that began with a slowdown in travel during the recession, which trimmed sales where USA Today is especially popular, such as hotels and airports.

USA Today’s decline last year allowed The Wall Street Journal to surpass it as the newspaper with the biggest U.S. circulation. In Monday’s report, the Journal once again posted the only gain in circulation among the top 25 newspapers that had comparable figures from a year ago. It grew its circulation 0.5 percent to 2.09 million. The Journal can count online readers because it charges them to read its website, while many newspapers can only count print subscriptions and newsstand sales.

The Journal is also looking to put itself further ahead of the No. 3 newspaper, The New York Times, which saw an 8.5 percent decline in weekday circulation during the most recent period and a 5.2 percent drop on Sundays. The Times’ average circulation was 951,063 on weekdays and 1.38 million on Sundays.

The new figures came as the Journal launched a metro edition in the New York City region to compete more aggressively with the Times for local readers and advertisers. The first metro section ran 16 pages Monday with articles detailing a rat infestation on Manhattan’s Upper East Side and the New York state budget crisis alongside advertising from Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s.

You can read the entire article here.

The Continuing Civil War in Mexico

I don’t know how many of you monitor the Strategy Page website. I do frequently looking for info about the civil war in Mexico. My main purpose is to enlighten local churches who think that sending their kids to Mexico on “summer mission” trip is perfectly safe. On the contrary, the cartels in Mexico would like nothing more than to grab a much of juvenile gringos and hold them for ransom.


April 26, 2010: The U.S. government continues to be dismayed with the progress on the so-called virtual fence, the array of radar, image sensors, and acoustic sensors that was originally touted as the 21st century solution to border security. In March the Department of Homeland Security cut back on funding the virtual fence. Now a number of senior legislators want the project halted or scrapped, arguing regular, low-tech fencing is not only budget-friendly but more reliable. Two U.S. senators want to add another 3,000 Customs and Border Patrol agents to the border by 2015. The one thing everyone seem to agree is useful, including Mexican authorities, is Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). There are other UAVs besides Predator, but Predator has become the generic term for surveillance UAVs. UAVs are a psychological weapon. Smugglers (both dope and people smugglers) never know when they are being watched if there are UAVs operation in the area.

April 25, 2010: Mexican officials acknowledge that there is more Cartel War-related violence in the interior than there was last year. In other words, it has crept south from the border. The city of Monterrey and Mexico City have had their share of drug gang violence, but Monterrey has been the scene recently of some spectacular cartel slayings and shoot-outs. The government argues the cartels are launching the attacks in an attempt to shake-up the army and police, and damage the government’s credibility. Security officials say some of the violence amounts to battles between cartel lieutenants to fill senior leadership positions. A number of senior cartel leaders have been arrested or slain in the last eight months. The army has made life in the border trafficking zones very tough for the cartelistas. Police say they have pressurized the border and the pressure is going to increase over the next few months. Critics, however, argue the drug gangs are demonstrating that they can strike anywhere in the country. President Felipe Calderon has countered that argument by saying recently that the government is “not ceding any space to the criminals.”

April 24, 2010: Cartel gunmen used automatic rifles and grenades to ambush a convoy carrying a senior state security officer. Police said the gunmen also employed a .50 caliber (12.7mm) sniper rifle to shoot at the official’s armored SUV. The attack took place in Michoacan state. Four people were killed and ten wounded in the attack. Heavy .50 caliber sniper rifles are used as anti-vehicle weapons. The .50 caliber bullet has a great deal of stopping power. Originally, the U.S. .50 caliber M2 (“Ma Deuce”) heavy machine gun was designed as an anti-armored vehicle weapon.

April 23, 2010: Seven people were slain when cartel gunmen ambushed two police vehicles in Ciudad Juarez (Chihuahua state). Five of those killed were federal police officers and one was a city policeman. The other person was a civilian. There are around 5,000 federal police deployed in the Juarez region.

April 22, 2010: Approximately 50 cartel gunmen attacked a hotel in Monterrey (Nuevo Leon state) and kidnapped three people. The attack took place around three a.m. The gunmen drove up to the hotel in a convoy of stolen cars.

April 19, 2010: Government officials and diplomats are asking the U.S. to continue to improve cooperation with Mexican security agencies. Intelligence fusion centers with U.S. and Mexican agents and analysts are key to breaking up cartel operations, especially in the border regions. The Mexican government has come a long way from the days it rejected any overt cooperation with the U.S., calling the offer an attempt to undermine Mexican sovereignty. Mexican diplomats repeatedly point out that their government seeks international cooperation. However, the government riles at what it considers unfair criticism regarding corruption. Responding to charges from the U.S. that corruption in Mexico was hindering counter-drug efforts, Mexican officials argued that the U.S. is not doing enough to stem American demand for illegal narcotics.

April 17, 2010: U.S. Border Patrol agents fired at a vehicle that tried to run through a border checkpoint from Tijuana. The driver was later arrested.

April 15, 2010: U.S. and Mexican authorities confirm that cartel gunmen continue to launch attacks continue in the Juarez Valley area (east of Ciudad Juarez). Several hundred Mexican families have fled the area. Local authorities estimate at least 50 people from the area are now seeking asylum in the U.S.. Many family members have reported the drug gangs threaten to kill them if they stay in their homes. The valley is a major smuggling corridor from Mexico into Texas. At the moment most of the violence appears to be committed by the Sinaloa drug cartel. The Sinaloa cartel is fighting the Juarez cartel for control of smuggling routes in and around Juarez. It appears that the Sinaloa cartel is winning that fight. Most of the drug shipments now passing through the Juarez area are controlled by the Sinaloa cartel. The Sinaloa cartel works with two smaller enforcer gangs in the area, the Killer Artists and the Mexicles. Juarez has its own subsidiary enforcers, La Linea and Azteca.

April 9, 2010: U.S. congressional representatives told the Mexican government that they would try to speed up disbursement of Merida initiative funds. The Mexican government wants more helicopters and aircraft to fight the Cartel War.

April 1, 2010: Drug cartel gunmen attacked seven different targets in what authorities described as a coordinated series of assaults. The attacks took place in Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon states. Two of the attacks targeted Mexican Army garrisons, one in the city of Reynosa. Eighteen of the gunmen were slain by Mexican Army soldiers during those two attacks. A Mexican Army position near a major state highway in Nuevo Leon state was one of the other five sites assaulted. A firefight also occurred between soldiers manning a control point and cartel gunmen along the highway between Reynosa and Monterrey. The gunmen attacked the two garrisons using vehicles with bullet-proof armor, hand grenades, and automatic rifles.

The Continuing Civil War in Mexico

I don’t know how many of you monitor the Strategy Page website. I do frequently looking for info about the civil war in Mexico. My main purpose is to enlighten local churches who think that sending their kids to Mexico on “summer mission” trip is perfectly safe. On the contrary, the cartels in Mexico would like nothing more than to grab a much of juvenile gringos and hold them for ransom.


April 26, 2010: The U.S. government continues to be dismayed with the progress on the so-called virtual fence, the array of radar, image sensors, and acoustic sensors that was originally touted as the 21st century solution to border security. In March the Department of Homeland Security cut back on funding the virtual fence. Now a number of senior legislators want the project halted or scrapped, arguing regular, low-tech fencing is not only budget-friendly but more reliable. Two U.S. senators want to add another 3,000 Customs and Border Patrol agents to the border by 2015. The one thing everyone seem to agree is useful, including Mexican authorities, is Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). There are other UAVs besides Predator, but Predator has become the generic term for surveillance UAVs. UAVs are a psychological weapon. Smugglers (both dope and people smugglers) never know when they are being watched if there are UAVs operation in the area.

April 25, 2010: Mexican officials acknowledge that there is more Cartel War-related violence in the interior than there was last year. In other words, it has crept south from the border. The city of Monterrey and Mexico City have had their share of drug gang violence, but Monterrey has been the scene recently of some spectacular cartel slayings and shoot-outs. The government argues the cartels are launching the attacks in an attempt to shake-up the army and police, and damage the government’s credibility. Security officials say some of the violence amounts to battles between cartel lieutenants to fill senior leadership positions. A number of senior cartel leaders have been arrested or slain in the last eight months. The army has made life in the border trafficking zones very tough for the cartelistas. Police say they have pressurized the border and the pressure is going to increase over the next few months. Critics, however, argue the drug gangs are demonstrating that they can strike anywhere in the country. President Felipe Calderon has countered that argument by saying recently that the government is “not ceding any space to the criminals.”

April 24, 2010: Cartel gunmen used automatic rifles and grenades to ambush a convoy carrying a senior state security officer. Police said the gunmen also employed a .50 caliber (12.7mm) sniper rifle to shoot at the official’s armored SUV. The attack took place in Michoacan state. Four people were killed and ten wounded in the attack. Heavy .50 caliber sniper rifles are used as anti-vehicle weapons. The .50 caliber bullet has a great deal of stopping power. Originally, the U.S. .50 caliber M2 (“Ma Deuce”) heavy machine gun was designed as an anti-armored vehicle weapon.

April 23, 2010: Seven people were slain when cartel gunmen ambushed two police vehicles in Ciudad Juarez (Chihuahua state). Five of those killed were federal police officers and one was a city policeman. The other person was a civilian. There are around 5,000 federal police deployed in the Juarez region.

April 22, 2010: Approximately 50 cartel gunmen attacked a hotel in Monterrey (Nuevo Leon state) and kidnapped three people. The attack took place around three a.m. The gunmen drove up to the hotel in a convoy of stolen cars.

April 19, 2010: Government officials and diplomats are asking the U.S. to continue to improve cooperation with Mexican security agencies. Intelligence fusion centers with U.S. and Mexican agents and analysts are key to breaking up cartel operations, especially in the border regions. The Mexican government has come a long way from the days it rejected any overt cooperation with the U.S., calling the offer an attempt to undermine Mexican sovereignty. Mexican diplomats repeatedly point out that their government seeks international cooperation. However, the government riles at what it considers unfair criticism regarding corruption. Responding to charges from the U.S. that corruption in Mexico was hindering counter-drug efforts, Mexican officials argued that the U.S. is not doing enough to stem American demand for illegal narcotics.

April 17, 2010: U.S. Border Patrol agents fired at a vehicle that tried to run through a border checkpoint from Tijuana. The driver was later arrested.

April 15, 2010: U.S. and Mexican authorities confirm that cartel gunmen continue to launch attacks continue in the Juarez Valley area (east of Ciudad Juarez). Several hundred Mexican families have fled the area. Local authorities estimate at least 50 people from the area are now seeking asylum in the U.S.. Many family members have reported the drug gangs threaten to kill them if they stay in their homes. The valley is a major smuggling corridor from Mexico into Texas. At the moment most of the violence appears to be committed by the Sinaloa drug cartel. The Sinaloa cartel is fighting the Juarez cartel for control of smuggling routes in and around Juarez. It appears that the Sinaloa cartel is winning that fight. Most of the drug shipments now passing through the Juarez area are controlled by the Sinaloa cartel. The Sinaloa cartel works with two smaller enforcer gangs in the area, the Killer Artists and the Mexicles. Juarez has its own subsidiary enforcers, La Linea and Azteca.

April 9, 2010: U.S. congressional representatives told the Mexican government that they would try to speed up disbursement of Merida initiative funds. The Mexican government wants more helicopters and aircraft to fight the Cartel War.

April 1, 2010: Drug cartel gunmen attacked seven different targets in what authorities described as a coordinated series of assaults. The attacks took place in Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon states. Two of the attacks targeted Mexican Army garrisons, one in the city of Reynosa. Eighteen of the gunmen were slain by Mexican Army soldiers during those two attacks. A Mexican Army position near a major state highway in Nuevo Leon state was one of the other five sites assaulted. A firefight also occurred between soldiers manning a control point and cartel gunmen along the highway between Reynosa and Monterrey. The gunmen attacked the two garrisons using vehicles with bullet-proof armor, hand grenades, and automatic rifles.

The good guys win another one!

Once again I’m violating my one post per day rule.

In the desert of California is a five foot cross. It’s been there for a very long time and is a designated War Memorial. However, for nine years, a lawsuit has been progressing through the courts to have it removed because of a non-constitutional requirement of “separation of church and state.” The suit reached the US Supreme Court and the verdict was released today. The lawsuit to removed the cross failed. Not surprisingly, Justice Stevens dissented—again. As I’ve said before, there is not a leftist, statist, Marxist issue Justice Stevens doesn’t like.

From Allahpundit at Hot Air…

Supreme Court: The Mojave desert cross can stay

posted at 12:29 pm on April 28, 2010 by Allahpundit

There’s no Establishment Clause exception for de minimis violations, but if there was, this would be a prime candidate. The cross is five feet tall; it’s located in a desert; it’s been there for decades with no complaints until recently; and it’s designed as a war memorial. In fact, the land on which it sits doesn’t even belong to the federal government anymore. Congress transferred it to the VFW years ago precisely in order to avoid a church-and-state challenge. The risk that anyone’s going to stumble upon it and feel the heavy hand of government nudging them towards Christ is, in other words, remote. And yet this court battle has been raging for fully nine years, ending this morning in a 5-4 decision at the tippy top of the judicial food chain featuring six different written opinions. Not only that, the ruling doesn’t even provide any broad guidance: The issue that decided the case was whether a lower court’s injunction preventing the cross from being displayed on federal land could be nullified by having Congress transfer the land to a private owner. Answer: Yes. Which, I suppose, raises the question of what would happen if the government started building churches and then selling them off to private owners, but since that’s not going to happen in any sphere of reality outside of a Dawkins polemic, let’s not dwell on it.

Here’s the opinion. An interesting detail noted by Stevens in dissent: Ownership of the land isn’t the only Establishment Clause issue here.

The 2002 injunction barred the Government from “permitting the display of the Latin cross in the area of Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve.” App. 39. The land-transfer statute mandated transfer of the land to an organization that has announced its intention to maintain the cross on Sunrise Rock. That action surely “permit[s]” the display of the cross. See 11 Oxford English Dictionary578 (2d ed. 1989) (defining “permit” as “[t]o admit or allow the doing or occurrence of; to give leave or opportunityfor”). True, the Government would no longer exert direct control over the cross. But the transfer itself would be an act permitting its display…

In my view, the transfer ordered by §8121 would not end government endorsement of the cross for two independently sufficient reasons. First, after the transfer it would continue to appear to any reasonable observer that the Government has endorsed the cross, notwithstanding that the name has changed on the title to a small patch of underlying land. This is particularly true because the Government has designated the cross as a national memorial, and that endorsement continues regardless of whether the cross sits on public or private land. Second, the transfer continues the existing government endorsement of the cross because the purpose of the transfer is to preserve its display. Congress’ intent to preserve the display of the cross maintains the Government’s endorsement of the cross…

Congressional action, taken after due deliberation, that honors our fallen soldiers merits our highest respect. As far as I can tell, however, it is unprecedented in the Nation’s history to designate a bare, unadorned cross as the national war memorial for a particular group of veterans.Neither the Korean War Memorial, the Vietnam War Memorial, nor the World War II Memorial commemorates our veterans’ sacrifice in sectarian or predominantly religious ways. Each of these impressive structures pays equal respect to all members of the Armed Forces who perished in the service of our Country in those conflicts. In this case, by contrast, a sectarian symbol is the memorial. And because Congress has established no other national monument to the veterans of the Great War, this solitary cross in the middle of the desert is the national World War I memorial. The sequence of legislative decisions made to designate and preserve a solitary Latin cross at an isolated location in the desert as a memorial for those who fought and died in World War I not only failed to cure the Establishment Clause violation but also, in my view, resulted in a dramatically inadequate and inappropriate tribute.

It’s a good thing he’s retiring because that “this is the national World War I memorial” argument would be grounds if he wasn’t. I take his point — honoring Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist troops, etc, with a cross is rather insufficiently nuanced — but if the worry is observers feeling influenced by the display, how does Stevens justify the religious symbols on the headstones at Arlington? There’s theoretically no government endorsement problem there since servicemen get to select their own insignias, but (a) it is federal land and (b) seeing so many crosses associated with such valor, even with stars of David and crescents mixed in, is more powerful than some puny cross in the desert. To be clear: I have zero problem with it. Just wondering how JPS squares that circle.

I applaud the US Supreme Court. They’ve shot down another piece of liberal idiocy. Good on’em!

The good guys win another one!

Once again I’m violating my one post per day rule.

In the desert of California is a five foot cross. It’s been there for a very long time and is a designated War Memorial. However, for nine years, a lawsuit has been progressing through the courts to have it removed because of a non-constitutional requirement of “separation of church and state.” The suit reached the US Supreme Court and the verdict was released today. The lawsuit to removed the cross failed. Not surprisingly, Justice Stevens dissented—again. As I’ve said before, there is not a leftist, statist, Marxist issue Justice Stevens doesn’t like.

From Allahpundit at Hot Air…

Supreme Court: The Mojave desert cross can stay

posted at 12:29 pm on April 28, 2010 by Allahpundit

There’s no Establishment Clause exception for de minimis violations, but if there was, this would be a prime candidate. The cross is five feet tall; it’s located in a desert; it’s been there for decades with no complaints until recently; and it’s designed as a war memorial. In fact, the land on which it sits doesn’t even belong to the federal government anymore. Congress transferred it to the VFW years ago precisely in order to avoid a church-and-state challenge. The risk that anyone’s going to stumble upon it and feel the heavy hand of government nudging them towards Christ is, in other words, remote. And yet this court battle has been raging for fully nine years, ending this morning in a 5-4 decision at the tippy top of the judicial food chain featuring six different written opinions. Not only that, the ruling doesn’t even provide any broad guidance: The issue that decided the case was whether a lower court’s injunction preventing the cross from being displayed on federal land could be nullified by having Congress transfer the land to a private owner. Answer: Yes. Which, I suppose, raises the question of what would happen if the government started building churches and then selling them off to private owners, but since that’s not going to happen in any sphere of reality outside of a Dawkins polemic, let’s not dwell on it.

Here’s the opinion. An interesting detail noted by Stevens in dissent: Ownership of the land isn’t the only Establishment Clause issue here.

The 2002 injunction barred the Government from “permitting the display of the Latin cross in the area of Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve.” App. 39. The land-transfer statute mandated transfer of the land to an organization that has announced its intention to maintain the cross on Sunrise Rock. That action surely “permit[s]” the display of the cross. See 11 Oxford English Dictionary578 (2d ed. 1989) (defining “permit” as “[t]o admit or allow the doing or occurrence of; to give leave or opportunityfor”). True, the Government would no longer exert direct control over the cross. But the transfer itself would be an act permitting its display…

In my view, the transfer ordered by §8121 would not end government endorsement of the cross for two independently sufficient reasons. First, after the transfer it would continue to appear to any reasonable observer that the Government has endorsed the cross, notwithstanding that the name has changed on the title to a small patch of underlying land. This is particularly true because the Government has designated the cross as a national memorial, and that endorsement continues regardless of whether the cross sits on public or private land. Second, the transfer continues the existing government endorsement of the cross because the purpose of the transfer is to preserve its display. Congress’ intent to preserve the display of the cross maintains the Government’s endorsement of the cross…

Congressional action, taken after due deliberation, that honors our fallen soldiers merits our highest respect. As far as I can tell, however, it is unprecedented in the Nation’s history to designate a bare, unadorned cross as the national war memorial for a particular group of veterans.Neither the Korean War Memorial, the Vietnam War Memorial, nor the World War II Memorial commemorates our veterans’ sacrifice in sectarian or predominantly religious ways. Each of these impressive structures pays equal respect to all members of the Armed Forces who perished in the service of our Country in those conflicts. In this case, by contrast, a sectarian symbol is the memorial. And because Congress has established no other national monument to the veterans of the Great War, this solitary cross in the middle of the desert is the national World War I memorial. The sequence of legislative decisions made to designate and preserve a solitary Latin cross at an isolated location in the desert as a memorial for those who fought and died in World War I not only failed to cure the Establishment Clause violation but also, in my view, resulted in a dramatically inadequate and inappropriate tribute.

It’s a good thing he’s retiring because that “this is the national World War I memorial” argument would be grounds if he wasn’t. I take his point — honoring Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist troops, etc, with a cross is rather insufficiently nuanced — but if the worry is observers feeling influenced by the display, how does Stevens justify the religious symbols on the headstones at Arlington? There’s theoretically no government endorsement problem there since servicemen get to select their own insignias, but (a) it is federal land and (b) seeing so many crosses associated with such valor, even with stars of David and crescents mixed in, is more powerful than some puny cross in the desert. To be clear: I have zero problem with it. Just wondering how JPS squares that circle.

I applaud the US Supreme Court. They’ve shot down another piece of liberal idiocy. Good on’em!

Found at Phlegmfatale

I found this at Phlemmie’s blog. I couldn’t get the link function to work but I do want to give her credit.

Here it is: the best movie line ever!

Found at Phlegmfatale

I found this at Phlemmie’s blog. I couldn’t get the link function to work but I do want to give her credit.

Here it is: the best movie line ever!