• The number of people a newspaper "reaches" and the number of paid subscribers to a newspaper are apples and oranges. News sprint ad rates are determined by accurate circulation numbers (paid subscribers), at least at ethical newspapers. Any media source, from daily newspapers to mom-and-pop websites, can claim they are "reaching" more people now than ever with the Internet, smart phones, and other technological advancements. If The Advocate is reaching more people than ever and is thriving, why is the paper getting smaller by the minute?

    January 22, 2011 at 8:07 p.m.

  • isnt circulation down across the board for all newspapers in the US ?

    January 22, 2011 at 3:50 p.m.

  • The "news" part it, if you live in Victoria.

    January 22, 2011 at 2:40 p.m.

  • For the most part, no proof readers at the Victoria Advocate. Really!

    January 22, 2011 at 1:42 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 22, 2011 at 1:15 p.m.

  • My congratulations on your election to the APME Board -- well deserved. I hope you can make a difference.

    January 22, 2011 at 12:37 p.m.

  • The difference in the 1982 and 2010 Advocate is about 15,000 less in circulation.

    January 22, 2011 at 11:22 a.m.

  • The difference in 2010 is that the grand majority of newspapers no longer write thier own stories but rather parrot whatever the major wire services put out.

    Even more tragic is that newspapers no longer serve as a watchdog against government and / or corporate corruption and excess. More often it is the case that the newspapers are in the back pocket of these entities and just plain don't report stories that would reflect negatively on their "masters".

    Case in point is our own Vic Ad Editorial board. When is the last time they stood up to the city council or local big businesses on any issue? I can't remember a single editorial that didn't give a glowing endorsement for anything the city council was pushing.

    Come on Vic Ad. Lets see some hard hitting investigative journalism. What are you afraid of ? If they try to retaliate against you for a truthful exposure you can hit right back in print and expose them even more. Do some good in the community and help root out the "good 'ol boy" network.

    January 22, 2011 at 10:36 a.m.

  • Nothing, if you live in Victoria LOL!

    January 22, 2011 at 10:30 a.m.

  • Great post, and congratulations on the new APME position. Newspapers are going through a great upheaval, but it's change that they are embracing, and the Advocate is doing it as well as any small daily I've seen.

    I heard a commentator say newspapers are still in the toddler stage of a decades-long evolution from print to digital. Newspapers will try different things to get their message out and no doubt stumble with a few (remember CueCat from the Dallas Morning News?). But today, a person can e-mail, post or tweet a link to a story he or she finds interesting in an instant. In 1982, we bought 5 copies of the paper, clipped and mailed.

    Newspapers also are dealing with aggregators stealing (there's no other word for reposting copyrighted content and selling advertising around it) their content, and an environment where advertisers are trying new things like mobile coupons and marketing through social networks. And, yes, there are many more options for media that compete for people's time that did not exist 30 years ago. Still, I have no doubt newspapers, in whatever form, will answer these challenges. People still want to be informed about their communities, and they still want a central place to voice their opinions.

    I liked the comment in the McGuire post: "We are on the teacups at Disneyland and they are out of control. But wow … it is a great and fun ride."

    January 22, 2011 at 9:38 a.m.

    That difference is that in '82, newspapers had subscribers. Now, poor journalistic ethics and poor writing are leaving them floundering on the shore gasping for breath. Of course, the Internet does offer the opportunity for newspapers to inflate their numbers and stroke the egos of the editors.

    January 22, 2011 at 7:55 a.m.