In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Kalb on Alexander | Main | Fascist Buildings »

October 16, 2007

Fact for the Day

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Another bulletin from our changing media environment:

The average [newspaper] reader spends more time with a print edition on a single day than the average visitor to a paper's Web site spends in an entire month.




posted by Michael at October 16, 2007


Isn't "spends more time with" a weasely bit of wording? People who spend time with newsprint spend quite a bit of that time fetching the paper from wherever the delivery boy threw it, sorting out the numerous sections that can go straight into recycling, turning pages in the few remaining sections to find the few pages they're actually interested in, and in some cases rolling up sections for dog discipline or cutting and folding them for birdcage liner. Website readers tend to read and then leave.

Posted by: Dr. Weevil on October 16, 2007 10:31 AM

Visiting a newspaper's website is not really equivalent to buying a newspaper. To compare like with like, someone who eyes the headlines as he walks by a newsstand or scans a clipping that someone has pinned to the office bulletin board should count as a "reader" of the print edition.

Posted by: Intellectual Pariah on October 16, 2007 2:04 PM

That's a fascinating statistic, Michael, and I tend to believe it.

Of course, when a reader navigates to a newspaper website, he usually does so with a specific article or type of article in mind. At least, I do. I read these newspapers online almost every day:

1. Chicago Tribune
2. Chicago Suntimes
3. NY Times
4. Peoria (IL) Journal Star
5. Decatur (IL) Herald-Review

I read the Chicago newspapers for news of the Cubs, bits about the blues scene, and for the organized crime stories... which I absolutely cannot get enough of.

I read the NY Times solely for the coverage of New York sports. Given the Times history of fabrication (Jayson Blair, the Duke lacrosse hoax), I assume that all Times news stories are really propaganda for the paper's pseudo-Marxist agenda. Sometimes, you can't escape this crap in the Times by restricting yourself to the sports pages. The Times is determined to find racism, sexism and homophobia in every nook and cranny of the sports world. What a bore! Whenever I encounter that vomit, I immediately cease reading.

I read the Peoria and Decatur Illinois newspapers for coverage of U of Illinois sports and for coverage of cultural and political issues from central Illinois. This keeps me in touch with a very important and always lively music scene.

I target specific writers and specific content when I read newspapers online. I've long since given up reading any newspapers cover to cover. And, given the noxious leftist bias of newspapers, I refuse to pay for them. (Don't tell me that newspapers aren't leftist rags. My first wife, also deceased, wrote for newspapers. I've spent a lifetime around the music press. Reporters are almost uniformly hard line leftists.)

Amusingly, the only paper I ever read cover to cover is The New York Post, and I do this only on rare ocassion... when I'm having lunch alone at a particular diner in Chelsea. Somebody always leaves behind a free copy. I just find the Post hilariously entertaining. The Post doesn't make any bones about the fact that it is a form of wildly exaggerated theater. It's funny. I wish I could say the same about the bilious, worthless NY Times.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on October 16, 2007 11:10 PM

That's not surprising at all. Similar to Doubting Thomas, I often go to an online newspaper just for one article that is a link from somewhere else. This takes me to papers I would never otherwise read, sometimes ones I've never heard of.

Or I go to a newspaper online just for their sports section (like the Baltimore Sun and its Orioles coverage).

A more interesting question is do online readers spend more or less time overall reading newspapers than their deadtree counterparts.

Posted by: Gadsden on October 17, 2007 6:30 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?