Dinosaur Media Watch: Circulation down 5%

For the State Media, there just isn’t any good news. They somehow have the belief they can continue to publish their biased propaganda as news and the people will buy it.

Wrong!

The circulation numbers have been released and as you look down the list, only the Wall Street Journal had an increase in circulation. Perhaps due to its conservative editorial board, hmmmm?

US newspaper circulation down, decline rate slows

NEW YORK – U.S. newspaper circulation fell over the past six months at the slowest rate in two years.
Figures released Monday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations show that while circulation is no longer in free fall, spending on newspapers is not picking up the way it has for many other consumer goods coming out of the Great Recession.
Several trends factor in the decline. Free news on the Web is a big reason. Publishers also have been looking to offset reductions in advertising revenue by raising newsstand and subscription prices, losing some paying customers in the process. And some newspapers have reduced delivery to less profitable areas, figuring the cost of trucking newspapers far afield doesn’t pay off in extra advertising dollars.
According to the audit bureau, average daily circulation fell 5 percent in the six months that ended Sept. 30, compared with the same period a year earlier. That’s better than the 8.7 percent drop seen in the previous reporting period, which ran from October 2009 to March. The last time the reduction rate was lower was in the April-September period of 2008, when circulation fell 4.6 percent.
Sunday circulation fell 4.5 percent in the April-September period, also smaller than the 6.5 percent drop in the six months before that.
The comparisons are based on 635 weekday newspapers and 553 Sunday newspapers that had comparable data for the recent six months and the same period a year ago.

There’s more at the site.

Below is the list of papers, their circulation and the amount of increase/decrease of subscriptions.




Total Paid Circulation
State Newspaper Name Frequency As of 9/30/10 As of 9/30/09 % Change
NY WALL STREET JOURNAL AVG M (M-F) 2,061,142 2,024,269 1.82%
DC USA TODAY AVG M (M-F) 1,830,594 1,900,116 -3.66%
NY NEW YORK TIMES AVG M (M-F) 876,638 927,851 -5.52%
CA LOS ANGELES TIMES AVG M (M-F) 600,449 657,467 -8.67%
DC WASHINGTON POST AVG M (M-F) 545,345 582,844 -6.43%
NY NEW YORK DAILY NEWS AVG M (M-F) 512,520 544,167 -5.82%
NY NEW YORK POST AVG M (M-F) 501,501 508,042 -1.29%
CA SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS AVG M (M-F) 477,592 N/A N/A
IL CHICAGO TRIBUNE AVG M (M-F) 441,508 465,892 -5.23%
TX HOUSTON CHRONICLE AVG M (M-F) 343,952 384,437 -10.53%
PA PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER AVG M (M-F) 342,361 361,481 -5.29%
NY NEWSDAY AVG M (M-F) 314,848 357,124 -11.84%
CO DENVER POST AVG M (M-F) 309,863 340,949 -9.12%
AZ ARIZONA REPUBLIC AVG M (M-F) 308,973 316,873 -2.49%
MN MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE AVG M (M-F) 297,478 304,544 -2.32%
TX DALLAS MORNING NEWS AVG M (M-F) 264,459 263,810 0.25%
OH CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER AVG M (M-F) 252,608 271,182 -6.85%
WA SEATTLE TIMES AVG M (M-F) 251,697 263,588 -4.51%
IL CHICAGO SUN-TIMES AVG M (M-F) 250,747 275,641 -9.03%
MI DETROIT FREE PRESS (e) AVG M (M-F) 245,326 269,729 -9.05%
FL ST. PETERSBURG TIMES AVG M (M-F) 239,684 240,146 -0.19%
OR OREGONIAN AVG AD (M-F) 239,071 249,164 -4.05%
CA SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE AVG M (M-F) 224,761 242,693 -7.39%
CA SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE AVG M (M-F) 223,549 251,782 -11.21%
NJ NEWARK STAR-LEDGER AVG M (M-F) 223,037 246,006 -9.34%

Hmmm…

It seems that the posts I had queued for today and tomorrow have gone, “Poof!”  I spend yesterday afternoon on them, apparently, to no avail.

Now, if I can just remember all the details.

Back to the salt mines.

Bumper Stickers

I work at a not-for-profit which translates, to me, an establishment that operates with ‘other peoples’ money’. Folks with good incomes from free enterprise choose to give it to us so that we might fulfill our mission. That money is invested (in the free market) and the income from those investments pays for the upkeep of the place, our salaries, and improvements. There have been many improvements over the last decade that have cost several hundred millions of dollars. All this money came from some of those dreaded ‘fat cats’ that are derided by the political class, including our president, and even those who work there.

There is a department which has a mission to encourage these fat cats to show support by donations, endowments, memberships, etc.. They work very hard at this and are very, very good at it. A few years ago, when the stock market went seriously south, some employees had to be let go, but some of the long-time supporters stepped up and provided a back-stop to keep things from getting worse. Now everything seems to be on an even keel.

The fact remains that our salaries are underwritten by the money provided by these ‘rich’ folks. The things we are able to do for ‘improvements’ are paid for by the ‘rich’. What would happen to us and our jobs and our mission if the ‘rich’ weren’t there? The only government (tax funded) money comes via some grants occasionally. What happens when there are no more ‘rich’ people who appreciate our mission? What happens when taxes take more and more of the money the ‘rich’ have….say, through estate taxes? What happens when there are no more ‘rich’ people?

So….how come so many of those who have the privilege of working at this establishment still have Obama stickers on their cars? Do they not understand that they support a political theory that would like to ‘take’ the money away from our ‘friends’? I must admit, however, that the Obama stickers are better than the oftentimes rude and crude stickers that were deriding the previous president. (I still see some of those in the parking lot, even now, after they ‘won’).

Yesterday I parked next to the car of an employee who, in an earlier time, ran a business–had to meet payroll, buy stock, pay taxes, satisfy customers, etc. And there it was, the lingering Obama/Biden sticker. It just doesn’t make sense to me and it never will.

* * * * *
In a small effort to have my say, I have for years sported a RKBA sticker in my window, not too far from my parking sticker. Probably there is no one there who knows it is a sticker supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. They would be shocked, shocked! If they got close enough to my car they would notice the November is Coming sticker from Americans for Prosperity, that shadowy, dangerous and unpatriotic group that Obama rails about. Now I’m contemplating another sticker, just arrived in the mail. Along with the stickers in the parking garage that I see sporting the Obama stickers are the ones suggesting that we Coexist–with each of the letters in the word fashioned from a symbol representing many of the world religions. I can’t explain exactly why, but that sticker has always irritated me. The antidote has arrived…..some enterprising fellow cranked up his Photoshop software and came up with this:


Sadly, the humor and inventiveness will be overlooked. No one will recognize the ‘letters’ on the sticker and from whence they came. But I will know and I’ll feel just a tiny bit of delicious revenge…..even though that’s not a grown-up thing to do. I am ashamed, but I’ll get over it.

IBD agrees with me

Yesterday, I wrote about the dems smear tactics they’re using this election rather than stand on their record and discuss the issues.  Seems I’m not the only one who’s noticed this.


From the Investor’s Business Daily editorial board… 

Running On Empty

Election ’10: Democrats battle imaginary racist conspiracies, claim that ghostly foreign financiers oppose them and even smear one Republican with bizarre kidnapping charges. Can’t they just run on their record?

The 111th Congress fulfilled liberal Democrats’ decades-long goal of government-run health care, spent over a trillion dollars on a Keynesian stimulus that promised millions of yet-to-arrive jobs and punished Wall Street for the financial crisis with a massive new regulatory regime.
So shouldn’t running for re-election be simple?
That’s the way many pundits confidently said it would be. Before Newsweek was sold for a dollar — a fraction of the newsstand price for a single issue — its editor was claiming that Barack Obama was a “Burkean” conservative (in the mold of Edmund Burke, the 18th century British parliamentarian and scourge of the French Revolution), in tune for the long term with center-right America.
New York Times Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus wrote a book on conservatism being dead now that “the Democrats are in charge and, in Obama, have a leader of rare political skills.”
Now, seemingly overnight, Democrats may lose their majority in the House, and in the Senate their majority leader maybe unseated.
So they’ve decided on the Hail Mary pass. Since they think Republicans are nut jobs, maybe they can convince voters of it.
Those thousands of Tea Partyers, including many women? They can’t be a true populist uprising. So the NAACP, a stalwart ally of liberal Democrats, unveils an October Surprise: a report charging that the Tea Party is chock full of “anti-Semites, racists and bigots.”
This week, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman reiterated the White House’s charge — backed by zero evidence — that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce financed ads against liberal Democrats with cash from foreign corporations.

Strangest of all was Democrat Jack Conway’s wild charge that Rand Paul, the Tea Party-backed GOP foe beating him for a Kentucky U.S. Senate seat, kidnapped a woman during a college prank and made her worship the “Aqua Buddha.”

Democratic tactics extend to dirty tricks. Pennsylvania Democratic congressional nominee Bryan Lentz on Tuesday admitted to helping place an unserious Tea Party candidate on the ballot to siphon votes from GOP nominee Pat Meehan in their tight race.
Congress invites a comedian like Stephen Colbert to testify; the president plans to tarnish his high office by appearing on Comedy Central. With no winning issues to run on, Democrats seem to have embraced the politics of the absurd.

The democrat’s Theater of the Absurd is coming to a close. The NAACP did a trial balloon of their “racist” Tea Party accusation during their convention in KC earlier this year.  It flopped. I’d thought they’d learned from the experience.

Oh!  Wait!  They’re democrats!  Learning from experience is foreign to them.

Observations on the 2010 election.

We’re now within two weeks for the 2010 election. In many areas, incumbent democrats are fighting for their political life against conservative usurpers. In generic polls, republican candidates are six to eight points ahead of the democrats. Individually, there are many that are in virtual ties—Reid vs. Angle, Boxer vs. Fiorina, here in Missouri, Ike Skelton vs. Vicky Hartzler.

As I watch these races, I note a common theme. The republicans are running on the issues—Congress’ massive spending, TARP, Obamacare, the failed stimulus bills, all the legislation pushed through congress. In the case of passing Obamacare,the democrats voted its passage in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve during a snowstorm.

The democrats are campaigning on…?

That’s a good question. If they campaign on their legislative efforts this last term, they cut their own throats. Some few are but most seem to go directly to smear campaigns.

Robin Carnahan ran ads about Roy Blunt calling him the most corrupt in Washington (ha!) and accused Blunt of voting for TARP. She seemed unaware, or uncaring perhaps, that her own brother, Russ Carnahan, also voted for TARP. The more she ran those ads, Russ Carnahan’s opponent used them against her brother. That smear campaign backfired. The more she ran it, the further she trailed in the polls. Finally, the democrat national committee pulled her funding to redirect those funds to other, tighter, races.


In Delaware, they called Christine O’Donnell a witch. In California, a Jerry Brown staffer suggested calling Meg Whitman a whore. That staffer was reported to have been Brown’s wife.


It seemed to be a tested, reliable tactic for democrats. They can’t run on the issues, they can’t run on their records, so they dig deep in the mud and start slinging indiscriminately.


I am not non-partisan in this election. I’ve never been non-partisan. The actions of the democrats, their tactics, are exactly what I’ve come to expect from them and THAT is why they need to lose and lose big. The survival of this nation is too critical to leave any democrat, whether political, judicial, or regulatory, in power or in a position of influence. In two weeks, I urge you to vote for your conservative candidate. That candidate may not be a republican, but you can be assured, it won’t be a democrat.


For you local readers, here is a link to the KC Star’s website that gives, surprisingly, an unbiased overview of Vicky Hartzler and a diary covering one of her campaign days.

As a parting comment, I’ve added, what is becoming the national Tea Party logo, the Gadsen Flag, to the top of this post. It seems a woman in TX was blocked from voting because she wore a T-shirt with the Gadsen flag on the front. Michelle Obama can discuss campaign issues in the polling place, illegally, but a Texan can’t wear a T-shirt with a flag on it.

Culture of Poverty

Social theories come and go.  Theoretically, those proved false are the ones to go, but not when it contradicts the agenda of the liberals in academia. Social liberals have long said that poverty creates dysfunction. That it is poverty that destroys families and creates the need for welfare.

They are wrong.  Dysfunction, personal, familial, and cultural, causes poverty and drives the welfare state.  It’s a positive feed-back loop.  The more the welfare state grows, the more dysfunction that is created that causes more poverty and needs more welfare that…well, you know where this is going.

I’m not alone. The Heritage Foundation agrees.
    

‘Culture of Poverty’ Makes a Comeback reads the headline from this past Sunday’s New York Times. Patricia Cohen goes on to report: “[I]n the overwhelmingly liberal ranks of academic sociology and anthropology the word ‘culture’ became a live grenade, and the idea that attitudes and behavior patterns kept people poor was shunned. Now, after decades of silence, these scholars are speaking openly about you-know-what, conceding that culture and persistent poverty are enmeshed.”

At first, this may seem like the left is finally ready to make a major concession to reality about their decades-long War on Poverty. But a closer reading of Cohen’s source materials, a recent symposium on poverty in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, shows the opposite is true. The left is just as clueless about poverty as it has ever been. Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies Robert Rector writes at National Review Online:

One might imagine that experts researching the “culture of poverty” would examine how marital collapse, eroded work ethic, and indifference to academic study contribute to financial poverty. Guess again.

Instead, editors of The Annals firmly declare that the main cause of poverty is “material deprivation itself.” In other words, the cause of poverty is poverty: The cure for poverty is to artificially boost the incomes of the poor through welfare payments, free food, housing, medical care, and so on.

This is nothing new. Liberals always have insisted that poverty causes dysfunctional behaviors rather than vice versa. But, if having a low income caused problem behaviors (such as illegitimate births and eroded work ethic), then most Americans in the 19th and early 20th centuries (whose incomes were far lower than those of today’s poor) should have been drowning in dysfunctional behaviors. Of course, they were not.

As Rector has amply documented before, the left’s continued blindness to the cultural underpinnings of poverty have undermined civil society and bloated our federal budget. Since 1964, the U.S. has spent $15.9 trillion on means-tested welfare programs. After adjusting for inflation, welfare spending is 13 times higher today than it was in 1965. Welfare spending has grown more rapidly than Social Security, Medicare, education, and defense. And what do we have to show for these efforts? According to the Census Bureau, a record high 3.7 million Americans fell into poverty in 2009. The out-of-wedlock birthrate is now 40% and the African American out-of-wedlock birthrate is 72%. When the War on Poverty began the out-of-wedlock birthrate was just 7%.

The collapse of marriage is the root cause of child poverty in the U.S. today . It is far past time to reboot our poverty programs to promote work and encourage marriage in order to control costs and promote greater self-reliance. Among Rector’s recommendations:

  • Slowing the growth of the welfare state: Congress needs to establish reasonable fiscal constraints within the welfare system. Once the current recession ends, aggregate welfare spending should be rolled back to pre-recession levels. After this rollback has been completed, the growth of welfare spending should be capped at the rate of inflation.
  • Promoting personal responsibility and work: Able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to work or to prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. Food stamps and housing assistance, two of the largest programs for the needy, should be aligned with the TANF program to require able-bodied adults to work or to prepare for work for a minimum of 30 hours per week.
  • Ending the welfare marriage penalty and encouraging marriage in low-income communities: Current means-tested welfare programs penalize low-income recipients who get married; these anti-marriage penalties should be reduced or eliminated.

During the administration of President Bill Clinton, conservatives successfully reformed one welfare program in the 1990s: replacing the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with the new Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). But President Barack Obama’s failed economic stimulus gutted those reforms. And his budget proposal would spend $10.3 trillion on means-tested welfare over the next decade. Before the current rise in poverty, that was enough to give $250,000 to each person currently living in poverty in the U.S., or $1 million for a poor family of four. Our nation can’t afford another 10 years of failed War on Poverty thinking.

The Welfare State and entitlements are destroying this country from within.  It’s time to stop.

Declaring War on Bureaucracy

One of my major pleasures is keeping in touch with friends around the country via e-mail lists.  Such lists are a bit passe according to the younger generations but some of my lists has been in existence for well over a decade. 

One, known as the 1911 Tech Talk list, originally about 1911-style pistols, is more like a group of friends discussing just about everything.

For the last week, we’ve been arguing taxes. Specifically the “fair tax” so beloved by some.  I don’t. I favor a flat tax.  I detest any tax based on consumption.

But, whether it’s a sales tax as proposed by the “fair tax” advocates or the flat tax that I favor, we both want to eliminate or reduce as much as possible that great federal bureaucracy, the IRS.

My post today isn’t about taxes, nor the IRS.  It’s about government bureaucracy at every level.  Bureaucracy is killing us one regulation at a time and I’ve found another who also has similar beliefs. US Representative Fred Upton (R-MI).  Congressman Upton has written this column for the Washington Times and I think it’s worth repeating. 

UPTON: Declaring war on the regulatory state

Pelosi’s Congress ignores the red-tape brigade but the GOP won’t

 
Our nation is confronted with serious problems that require a fundamental reassessment of the size and role of government. With unemployment near 15 percent in many parts of the country, an unsustainable debt and unbridled federal spending, people fear the actions of a federal government that has grown too large and hinders rather than encourages economic growth. Folks desire a government that is responsive to their concerns and responsible with the resources they provide it. They want government returned to its proper, more limited role in their lives. They want a government that fosters the right conditions for job creation and economic growth.
This Democrat-controlled Congress has exploded the size of government, expanded government into more sectors of our economy, driven the national debt to unprecedented levels, placed spending on a trajectory that imperils future generations, and created a hostile environment for businesses large and small, turning a blind eye to the seemingly endless job-killing red tape coming from the administration. This Congress has failed to exercise oversight over agencies that have been developing regulations that stifle private investment and send American jobs overseas. As the late Walter Wriston, who advised President Reagan on economic policy during my tenure at the Office of Management and Budget, once said, “Capital will go to where it’s wanted and stay where it’s treated well.”
Should Republicans recapture the House in November, we will have a fundamentally different approach. Over the past four years, the priorities of Congress have fallen out of sync with those of the American people. For instance, one of Nancy Pelosi’s first acts as House speaker was to create a new Select Committee on Climate Change. To date, this new select committee has needlessly spent nearly $8 million in taxpayer money, and that does not account for the countless dollars spent on so-called “fact finding” missions. By law, this select committee has no legislative role; its sole purpose is to write reports. The only jobs created by this committee are within the confines of Capitol Hill. The American people do not need Congress to spend millions of dollars to write reports and fly around the world. We must terminate this wasteful committee.
During the final two years of the George W. Bush administration, Mrs. Pelosi and oversight committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman were eager to exert Congress’ oversight authority. They made countless inquiries, requested reams of documents and repeatedly called Cabinet secretaries and agency leaders to testify under oath. No program or executive action went unnoticed or unchecked. Oddly, we have not seen the same enthusiasm since the Obama administration has taken the helm. As a result, the economy has worsened, government spending is at an all-time high, and federal agencies are rampantly codifying more regulations that create a disincentive for private investment and the hiring of new employees. It is the constitutional duty of the House of Representatives to provide a check on the power of the executive branch. Over the past two years, the Pelosi-controlled Congress has been derelict in its duty.
We keep asking, “Where is the economic growth? Where are the jobs?” Because of the administration’s restrictive regulatory stranglehold on industry, companies are lacking the certainty or financial flexibility to hire new employees or invest in new plants or equipment. Instead, they hang onto their capital knowing that regulatory costs and taxes will increase, thus limiting their ability to invest for the future. It is a glaring indictment of current policies that U.S. enterprises are resigned to sit back and gain interest on their stockpiles of cash rather than invest and innovate.
Private enterprise, not government, is the heart and soul of our economy. By discouraging private investment, we eviscerate job growth. Regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Communications Commission and other agencies are only further smothering the economy. The government cannot buy or regulate its way out of this mess. It’s time for a new approach.

 …

Our government was once of the people, by the people, for the people. The pendulum has swung too far in the wrong direction. If the gavel is taken out of Mrs. Pelosi’s grasp, we will fight for economic growth and jobs and restore the American public’s faith and pride in their government. 

 The complete column is available at the Washington Times. It will matter little if we regain control of Congress and do not reduce the federal bureaucracy, limit their scope and eliminate much of their power.  The bureaus, controlled by the Ruling Class is one, if not the greatest, agent of ruin facing our country as our survival as Land of the Free. At the end, it is your vote that determines which path our country takes—a path to more and more regulation and bureaus, or one that reduces the hidden government elites, exposes their agendas and cuts their abuses and power.

Remember, come November 2nd.