THURSDAY'S LETTERS: Thoughts on E-Commerce, Newspaper Penetration and Bad Language

By: E&P Staff If you want to contribute to the conversation, send an e-mail to letters@editorandpublisher.com.

***
Thoughts on TimesSelect

Re: TimesSelect Draws About 135,000 Paid Users for Exclusive Online Offerings

I read the above story with interest.

I really miss reading Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert. However, as I view the New York Times as an accessory to murder -- tens of thousands of Iraqi non-combatants for starters -- I can't in good conscience give them money. Plainly Judith Miller did not stovepipe her stories into the paper without being aided and abetted by senior Times management.

I used to e-mail NY Times stories and columns to my friends. Now I find to my chagrin that Times Select content has been apparently culled from the most-emailed lists. To me this feels like a tax on liberalism.

Thanks for the great writing.

Simon Peter Hemingway, Ph.D.
Basin, Montana

***

Offering something for money is what commerce is all about, and the "increase revenue from the Web" motive produced no more value than existed before.

Because I have never read an Op-Ed from the New York Times and don't feel deprived, I fail to see the value. This was cooked up to generate money for a failing company, as evidenced by mass layoffs, etc. The LA Times found they had to lower their cover price to generate more income, curious, that. The people who are presently paying for the Web offering will be the die-hard supporters, as opposed to new readers. This is not how to widen your customer base, only solidify one faction of it.

In order to broaden your readership you have to do something different than you are currently doing. Logic says that you are where you are based on what you have done in the past, so if you want a different outcome, you do something that will get you a different desired outcome. Increase the true value of the product and interest will follow. Interest will translate into revenue when more readers are attracted to the paper.

Because of the loyalty the base of the readership demonstrates, it would be possible to totally change the tenor of the paper, and the readers would follow. In the mean time you pick up those that are nonreaders today. My suggestion is not to change the tenor per-say, just to acknowledge that the strategy would work.

With the reported loss of circulation of most newspapers in the nation, something must change to halt, or reverse, the course presently being followed.

Les Voth
Clifford, N.D.

***

Ed's Note: The following is in response to a letter printed yesterday from Paul Janensch, an associate professor of journalism at Quinnipiac University, who argued that rather than paid circulation, net newspaper penetration is the key metric for understanding the newspaper industry's current woes.

An interesting letter about your story not covering the whole story, when his question only asked part of the question. Those of us out of academia realize a story can only cover part of any story. Otherwise you would be quickly caught in the quagmire of getting everybody's opinion and a never-ending search for the facts that back up the facts.

If the good Professor wants to nitpick the lack of penetration in the story about circulation growth, he must include the following: Readership numbers instead of circulation volumes.

How about magazines penetration? A boating magazine is intended for only boating enthusiasts. Does the good Doctor suggest we do surveys by interest to determine what part of the population should be considered for each magazine. This is a good example of the elitist attitude of the Journalism Class.

Numbers are primarily for the business side of the newspaper which they have never understood and which they hide their ignorance by claiming it is not in their Journalistic calling to worry about people reading the newspaper. When Journalism Schools start teaching a business model instead of functions that can now be handled by computer programs, that is when Editorial will realize their accountability in readership and be held to a standard of newspaper quality that is measured by the readers -- as it should be -- and not their colleagues, co-workers, industry dinosaurs, and finally ivory towered elitist's without an understanding of the industry.

If you write a story and no one reads it have you really done your job?

David J Horchak
Newington Conn.

***

On Language

Re: Will Bunch's opinion column, The Editor Who Cried 'Wolfowitz'

After reading the first two paragraphs of Will Bunch's article about Judy Miller and The New York Times included in today's E&P opt-in email, I decided I should express my shock and dismay at the language used and the oh-so-obvious bias in his story (see examples below). Maybe this man thought this was an editorial, or that he had license to write this way, but Editor & Publisher should be embarrassed. The searing contempt shown in this article demonstrated only that Mr. Bunch is not a journalist in any sense of that word and that he should not be trusted to evaluate anything in the real world. I have been a journalist most of my life. I know what I'm talking about. Shame on you.

(quote) "Keller's original statement probably was just a poor choice of words. Ultimately, the problem with the "entanglement" here had nothing to do with whether Scooter Libby was screwing Judy Miller, and everything to do with Scooter Libby and his boss using Judy Miller to screw America -- and her willingness to act as a one-note mouthpiece for a dishonest White House." (unquote) -- Emphasis added

Sara Pentz

Ed's Note: If an E&P article has you all fired up, send us an tell us about it. Letters may be published unless writer makes a "confidential" or "not for publication" request.