Would the last person reading the New York Times please turn out the lights?
The following circulation compares the new data to the same period a year ago. Daily circulation is the Monday-through-Friday average.
- The New York Times lost more than 150,000 copies on Sunday. Circulation on that day fell a whopping 9.2% to 1,476,400. The paper’s daily circulation declined 3.8% to 1,077,256.
According to New York Times spokeswoman Diane McNulty, the company had budgeted for the declines in Sunday and daily circulation. Two-thirds of the Sunday loss stemmed from the elimination of bonus days and third-party bulk copies. Also: the paper had a single copy and home delivery price increase in July. The paper also focused on growing “highly profitable circulation,” she noted.
- At The Washington Post, daily circulation decreased 3.5% to 673,180 and Sunday dropped 4.3% to 890,163.
- Meanwhile, daily circulation at The Wall Street Journal grew a fraction of a percent, up 0.3% to 2,069,463 copies. At USA Today, circulation inched up 0.27%* to 2,284,219. (Correction: the original version of this story said USA Today’s daily circulation was up 2.7%.)
I guess people decided that they wanted to eat their Sunday breakfast without being interrupted by a wave of nausea after reading some typical New York Times bilge.
If this keeps up, the dinosaur media will become fodder for archaeologists and story tellers (“Once upon a time, Americans got their news by reading something we used to call “newspapers”...)
I am happy to see that the Times “budgeted” for this catastrophe although their attempt to put a prom dress on a pig falls pretty flat as you can well imagine. And I suppose by “highly profitable circulation” the Times is talking about their efforts to get their own employees to subscribe to the paper. Perhaps they can branch out and start a subscription drive that would target employees’ mothers. Now there’s an untapped resource ‘ole Pinch never thought of, I’ll bet.
Really, this is getting serious. What will us conservative blogs do if the New York Times goes under? Think about it. No more Maureen Dowd to reduce to tears. No more Krugman to fact check. No more Frank Rich to laugh at.
On the plus side, our national security will improve. But then at the same time, we will no longer be able to write towering denunciations of the perfidious louts who continue to publish our closely held secrets. How can any self respecting conservative blogger get by without the occasional foray into sanctimony that the Times so generously provides us?
So we here at The House have decided to start a campaign:
SAVE THE NEW YORK TIMES!
To all our readers, we ask you to subscribe or give generously to the Times just so that we have something to write about in the future. This site and others would grind to a halt if the Times went out of business so we are asking you to save the Times – and save the righty blogosphere.
I suggest we hurry. At the rate these guys are losing readers, Bill Keller will have to cancel the annual New York Times Summer Retreat in the Hamptons.
Note: Much of the above piece was originally published in The American Thinker