Surprise: New York Times Circulation Plunges, Wall Street Journal Gains

It's an every-six-months ritual over at Editor & Publisher: We wake up early on a Monday morning, and receive, compute and post the latest circulation results for daily and Sunday newspapers. The process has been grim for a few years now, and worse today than ever, with 3.5% declines in daily and a 4.5% hit on Sunday looking about right in the early going, on average.

One of the biggest victims -- thanks partly to popular Web sites such as, gasp, Huffington Post! -- is the New York Times, which reports a whopping 9.2% decline on Sundays for the six-month period, and 3.8% daily.

--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. USA Today experienced a similar increase. Circulation was up at the national daily .27% to 2,284,219.

--In Los Angeles, the Times lost more than 40,000 daily copies. Daily circulation there was down 5.1% to 773,884. Sunday declined 6.0% to 1,101,981.

--The New York Post, which had gained circulation for awhile (largely based on 25 cent price), fell for the second straight time, more than 3% daily and more than 8% on Sundays.

--The San Francisco Chronicle reported that daily circulation dropped 4.2% to 370,345 while Sunday dropped 3.0% to 424,603.

--The Boston Globe's daily circulation fell 8.3% to 350,605. Sunday declined 6.4% to 525,959.

--The Miami Herald reported daily circulation lost more than 11% with 240,223 copies while Sunday dropped 9% to 311,245.

--Daily circulation at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution declined 8.5% to 326,907 while Sunday fell 5.0% to 497,149.

--Daily and Sunday circulation at the Chicago Tribune both dropped 4.4% to 541,663 and 898,703 respectively. In a statement released this morning, the paper noted that it increased its readership with its other products like the free Redeye and its Web site.

--Good news in Baltimore: the Sun made a slight gain in daily circulation, up 0.1% (about 200 copies) to 232,360. Sunday circulation was down slightly 1.2% to 372,970.

There's more at E&P: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003795106
*
Greg Mitchell is author of the new book, So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq, and is editor of E&P.

Comments

[NorCalNative]

Mr. Mitchell, when your favorite player changes teams to a dreaded rival sometimes it takes awhile before you can warm up to him/her again. As far as I'm concerned most American newspapers took a dump during the Bush RUSH TO WAR.

Obviously, not all did, but there was a solid, flag-lapel-pin trail leading to the vast majority of most. The Constitutionaly protected enterprise sold out to government-inspired fear and war-proiteering. I've got nothing against honest and informed journalism. What I do object to is PROPAGANDA.

There is a huge and obvious difference between honest and informed and "fair and balanced." So from a progressive political view point it is with great pleasure to see some of these players lose audience share. However, with that said, we can't allow corporate ownership to cut "real reporting" and "real reporter" in order to maintain profit share.

Most of the current value of the internet and sites such as HuffPo is based on Professional Journalists from National and/or regional papers. There is a disconnect in the business model that allows the superior product (the internet) to be basically free and newspapers which are shrinking in both size and vaule to be profit based. Obviously, we are still in the Wild Wild West days of the internet but surely professional journalism can exist AND GET PAID FOR DOING IT.

Greg has a link at his site called ANGRYJOURNALIST.COM that's worth checking out.

[JudgeCrater]

Hey Arianna, when do you start your own news network? Either 'HBC' or 'HNN' has a nice ring to it.

[irishgawdess]

There seems to be a wide array of papers with drops in circulation. Is it due to the internet, or crappy reporting? Or both? Feels like we might be on the cusp of electronic news for which there will be some trade off - either advertising bombardment, or pay-per-view.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

The NYT is another bought "media" source that write anything they're told to. But when they endorsed Hillary..... well, that kind of verified what I stated in my first sentence.

I think we should redefine the word "news"....it just doesn't apply to any media source out there.

Have a nice flight down NYT.

[BlackbirdHighway]

Started my subscription to the Washington Post in the 70's, but dropped it when they had Ann Coulter in there. Thought about going back, but then they did the front page "Obama is a Muslim" story.

WaPo and the NY Times were both big pro-Iraq war supporters. Let them all go bankrupt, we don't need that sort of "conservative biased while pretending to be liberal" media anymore.

[cktirumalai]

I do not read "U.S.A. Today" except occasionally but the secret of its improved circulation may be that it seems designed to appeal to nearly every variety of reader and has no particular ideological bias. "Give readers the news and columnists of diverse persuasions, and let them form their own opinions." Some readers would be put off by precisely this feature. I would find it easier to construct a profile of a characteristic "New York Times" or "Washington Post" reader than of a "U.S.A. today" reader. Its round-up of news in every American state is one of its innovations.

[InofTouch]

Still find it funny while circulation is down...there seem to be alot links from the New Tork Times around here.

[cktirumalai]

I do not read "U.S.A. Today" except occasionally but the secret of its increased circulation may be that it has no particular ideological bias, and it is designed to appeal to every variety of reader. "Give readers the news and columnists of diverse peruasions, and let readers form their own opinions." Its round-up of news in all the American states is not a feature I have seen elsewhere. I think it easier to construct a profile of a dedicated "New York Times" or "Washington Post" reader than of a "U.S.A. Today" reader.

[burnt]

"Give readers the news and columnists of diverse persuasions, and let readers form their own opinions."

Although this is my philosophy as well, I also want the to be exposed to those who form their own opinions (and subsequent challenges/defenses of that opinion), so I mostly opt for electronic alternatives to paper subscription.

Seattle is still a two paper town. Although one more so than the other, both papers are progressive, so I don't get a great deal of "other side" coverage and opinion from them. They have both intently incorporated "online" as a part of their normal publishing activities... and may be faring better than most traditional papers for that reason (both daily rates are up).

I go online to the NYT specifically because they endorsed Clinton and I am advocating against her candidacy. I go to challenge them. At first that allowed a great deal of dialogue and debate, but since the first part of April, the Times has been in "containment" mode and has restricted most of what I want to say. I'm probably not your typical NYT reader.

I come to Huffington Post for the dedication, quality and wide range of contributions. At the moment, it's the hallmark of things to come.

[Thurber]

Although I find it a bit sad that newspapers are going out of favor since they provide more detail and context than TV, I have to admit to being thrilled about the NYT's well deserved fate.

Maybe ... someday ... they'll stop the war cheerleading even if it means they stop altogether. Recently Sen. Clinton threatened Iran with total annihilation, which in my mind can only mean one thing. A nuclear holocaust for Iranian's mostly innocent civilian population. The Boston Globe was horrified. The New York Times, Sen. Clinton's home town paper's response? All I heard were crickets

[KevinKSF]

The San Francisco Chronicle can thank Carla Marinucci for much of its circulation dive. She is a political reporter at the Chron that has no problem repeating the beltway gasbags" pontificating as news. If it"s beltway CW she reports it as FACT.

[jsomerville5]

I stopped buying the New York Times two years ago, after reading it daily since 1973. Don't miss it a bit - and after they endorsed Hillary - I really, really, am glad I no longer read it.

[Annette]

I don't care who they endorse, though I am not that fond of Clinton but I quit reading it when I realized they were cheerleading the runup to the war. I quit reading them online when they started charging to read the Op-Eds. I don't miss them at all.