Originally Posted by Unassisted
I didn't read the article, but in my 4 decades-plus on the planet, I've lived in two 2-newspaper towns that became 1-newspaper towns when a JOA expired. Some of the biggest newspapers in the country are treading water these days, because the people who've been on the planet for fewer decades than I have mostly get their news from the Net. In that business climate, it's hard to envision a scenario for setting up a brand-new separate operation for a daily newspaper.
In other words, it doesn't look good for the Post. Enjoy your afternoon paper while you can get it.
Afternoon papers were on the decline WAY before the 'net became a factor. TV and Cable being the main competion.
As for morning papers, the trend is focus on local news rather than national or international, since the Internet hasn't quite made it into that niche yet.
You can be as nostalgic as you please, but this is a sign of the times.
What it isn't IMO (although I'm not familiar with the Cincinnati press) is a conspiracy.
So quotes such as these:
At the beginning of the 1990s, The Post had a daily circulation of about 100,000 copies. By decade's end, that had dropped to about 40,000.
"You simply don't drive down circulation by almost 75 percent in a decade just due to market forces," Horstman says. "You have to suspect it was by design, to some degree."
are simply not well-informed.
BTW, a circulation of 40,000 is NOTHING for a newspaper (even a local one). I'm surprised this lasted this long.