Here is a self-serving bullshit story from the Wall Street Journal:
There are no haves in journalism. That is a bald-faced lie.
You do have some pooling because the old guards who were indoctrinated on newspapers providing what is sanctioned subjects and opinions go to larger newspapers because they need some sort of a peg where other people are more likely to do the same thing, so they can all follow a Zero Risk script.
But that is not something to consider as any growth, nor are there enough of these people to buoy the larger broadsheets.
And considering I get email blasts from the WSJ, New York Times, and Washington Post — the Big Three, as it were, considering how deeply discounted the subscriptions are — and how often they send the blasts — you know they are operating at a loss.
I used to cover the industry of newspapers, and I can still do the math and read the signs. If there was any truth to the WSJ piece, you wouldn’t have them stalk people with incessant deals.
While the rest of the US economy is booming, newspapers are not. Neither are magazines or broadcasters.
What we are seeing is larger papers be able to coast on their old resources, and that won’t last. Other smaller papers got devoured by asset squeezers, and they are working their way up. Of the three, the Washington Post is the most vulnerable, then the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times can hold out the longest, but if all this anti-Trump hysteria that goes way beyond the worst hate-fests of the past isn’t kicking up numbers, nothing will.
Journalists have gone to loopy extremes to paint themselves as valiant martyrs. It is not translating to salvation. They are going after Trump as if he were the plague personified. It’s not working, either.
And trying to pretend the national papers are the haves in this equation is just another gambit trying to make it sound as if they are doing better than they are, and they are not…