Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you could get the Editors to buy into this, it would be about 28% smaller overnight.
What you're missing is that 30% of the country is bitter and horribly unhappy left wing nut-jobs. (there is a matching 30% right) Like my neighbors. I have 2 neighbors with signs in their yard that say "Regime Change Begins at Home." Somehow this strikes me as incredibly out of line, Sadaam=W? Huh?
For a paper like the Times 30% equals an enormous target. Shoot the Times has a Patent section, and i don't think we're 1/2%.
|
Historically, the Times has always been "the "paper, beleive it or not. If you remove its oped page, you still get the best coverage of any paper in the country. The Wash Post is close, but not quite as good as the Times. Hell, nodding to the mainstream, the Times has even beefed up its Sports and Business pages in the past decade. I don't think it would do so if its target audience were bohemians, academics, left wing freaks and the generally disenfranchised. In fact, at $1.00 a day, a healthy chunk of those people probably can't even afford the Times. I think the Times' target audience is the people who want a better quality of national and intl news and have lousy local papers, which is 90% of the country.
The Philly Inquirer is simply atrocious. If it wasn't for the Times, I don't know what I'd read. The Journal is good, but its focused on business, so you don't get all the interesting shit you get in the TImes.
