« Morning Briefs: Stuff You've Probably Already Read Somewhere Else | Main | Another Bailout for Government Motors »

October 28, 2009

Over a Cliff: Newspaper Circulation Since 1990

Posted by Gregory of Yardale at October 28, 2009 5:13 AM

As the big long, page-hogging graphic below shows, circulations for all the major newspapers are tanking. And the year-to-year slips don't tell the story. There's a major trend away from the monopoly newspapers once had on news and opinion.

You can blame technological change, mostly, for this. Newspapers are a 19th century technology. There's no longer a need to read on ink and paper stuff that happened yesterday. But you also can't discount the fact that normal people just don't want to pay for left-wing propaganda marketed as "news."

On that note, did you know the New York Times now refers to traditional marriage as "opposite-sex marriage?" Oh, yeah. They went there.

Hat Tip: The Awl


'Opposite Sex Marriage?'

Funny, I call it normal marriage...

Posted by: Fuzzlenutter at October 28, 2009 5:44 AM

I've had 14 happy years of traditional marriage. Funny I never thought of it as opposite-sex marriage since that should be a given.

What same-sex couples do with their lives is none of my business and I've been VERY tolerant of them, pretty much the point of totally ignoring them. If this co-opting of our language continues, I may be forced to change my tolerant position.

Posted by: Paul H at October 28, 2009 6:07 AM

What a nice proof, the Liberal radicals are still and will always be a MINORITY. They are simply the loudest and the most harassing in their constant demands for "Equality" and "Fairness". "Opposite sex marriage"? There is only one marriage.

Posted by: Jay B at October 28, 2009 6:12 AM

Didn't the lefties rail on Carrie Prejean for referring to authentic marriage as opposite-sex marriage during the Miss America pageant?

Posted by: Judith M. at October 28, 2009 6:25 AM

So whats so wrong about traditional marrage anyway whats these liberal rags have aganist traditional everything?

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at October 28, 2009 7:37 AM

It looks like the bottom 5 lines are battling each other for something on the graph; more than likely, its a fight for the lowest position on the graph.

Posted by: obamasux at October 28, 2009 7:52 AM

Maybe they are battling for a government bailout?

Posted by: Judith M. at October 28, 2009 8:24 AM

Maybe they are battling for a government bailout?

Posted by: Judith M. at October 28, 2009 8:24 AM


Posted by: obamasux at October 28, 2009 9:14 AM

Their business philosophy of "the customer is always wrong" is really paying off.

Posted by: Kevin R. at October 28, 2009 10:44 AM

Wow, that LA Times line is really something, isn't it? My local paper just shrank its pages, raised its price, and continues to drone liberal bias, including attempting to cut a popular Doug Hoffman off at the knees. What a winning business strategy.

Posted by: Karin at October 28, 2009 11:11 AM

"Marriage" from "marry" -- to become united within matrimony.

"Matrimony" -- from the root 'mater', mother.

"Mother" -- a female parent.

"Parent" -- a father or a mother; from the Lat. root 'parere', to give birth.

Opposite-sex marriage is redundant and contrived, and same-sex "marriage" is an oxymoron. Like most leftist attempts at Utopia, redefining marriage must be synthesized in the sterile and soulless environment of academia, completely removed from any understanding of human nature.

Posted by: lvb-rocks at October 28, 2009 11:11 AM

The graph needs to be redrawn with a log scale.

As for marriage, it's been what it's been for 10,000 years of human history. When an ancient Greek or Roman got married, it was to someone of the opposite number.

Even the variants - polygamy &c. - weren't set up so the women could cuddle.

Posted by: ZZMike at October 28, 2009 1:17 PM

"Marriage" = union of man and woman.

Anything else is "queering off."

Posted by: Jay Guevara at October 28, 2009 7:19 PM