Mark Twain...If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.

Neal, there's a better chance that silent movies will replace the "talkies" than the newspaper industry has at surviving.
I agree with you and I'll miss it but technology equals obsolescence. I am going to miss my paper route.
I deliver the AJC and only had three houses left on my route anyways.

I used to love to read the newspaper.But I got tired of having to cross-reference the so called facts with online sites to see what was the truth.
I have a plan that will save the newspapers: Just like Sgt Friday used to say on Dragnet..........."Just the facts,m'am".Just print the facts,no inuendo, hyperbole or lies by omission.

Liberal "slant"? I won't read as they are just one lie after another. So, their own actions make them go under--good!

You said, "You cannot argue on one hand that supposedly-left-wing biased newspapers are going under because people don't like their ideas AND ALSO argue that you are ready to leave the country because America is "turning socialist".

But, liberal socialist don't read the paper...they get their news from Entertainment Tonight, Oprah, and whatever PrezBO and friends say.

Sorry, but the papers in my area of the country, S F Chronicle and Press Democrat, are too liberal for me. I get tired of the Bush bashing and the whining.

Can we at least get them you use proper grammar and spelling?

Left-Coaster typed: "Left-leaning people, on the other hand, have better things to do with their lives than sit around reinforcing each other's views"

Yeah, sure. Isn't that what Olbermann and his slobbering sycophants do on MSNBC every night? That's why his ratings suck hard.

but don't worry, I'm sure SanFranGranNan will bail him out before long, too.

I do read the papers, Neal, the online ones...sorry, that's the best I can do. My husband and I are both recently unemployed...we can't afford subscriptions to all those, so we read what we can online.

You cannot argue on one hand that supposedly-left-wing biased newspapers are going under because people don't like their ideas AND ALSO argue that you are ready to leave the country because America is "turning socialist".

Obama did have a commanding victory in the 2008 election, you know, which to most readers of this forum would be strong evidence that "liberal newspapers" are quite consistent with the "liberal mindset" of Americans these days.

Perhaps some conservative publications are better weathering the storm (if that is true, which I don't know if it is) because conservatives feel the need for validation and reinforcement of their views, and hence flock to conservative talk radio echo chambers and right-leaning publications. Left-leaning people, on the other hand, have better things to do with their lives than sit around reinforcing each other's views because they are sufficiently confident of their logic.

Yeah, your @ss and my face!

Bailing out the miserable failure that is the SF Chronicle is definitely a step towards the "Zimbabwe/Mugabe" style of economics espoused by Obama.

It would only serve to institutionalize the slanted, bizarre, left-wing groupthink that permeates San Francisco.

Businesses go out of business because they fail to interest the consumer. Not many newspaper boxes along the route any longer and too many copies left in the pay boxes.
By the time the papers are printed and distributed, their news is no longer new.

In the words of Boortz, Horse squeeze! Reading is power; that is a fact. But reading a newspaper with left leaning editorials and slanted opinionated coverage of events is anything but informative. Editors have worked to tear down the credibility of their publications and they should rightly accept that people have chosen to look for more accurate, less bias information elsewhere. The internet is greater source for such information.
Sorry Neil, like many other Americans, I too feel that newsprint is just not worth the read!

Why would Pelosi care? Would it be to save jobs? Would it be to continue promoting the new liberal agenda? What?

Arch-conservatives love to echo the talking point that newspapers are failing because of their "liberal slant". No, newspapers from coast to coast - liberal and conservative ones alike (and there are PLENTY of local conservative papers, mainly in the smaller to medium sized cities - e.g., Cincinnati Enquirer) - are in trouble because most have not figured out a viable business model for the internet age and with the competition for classified ads by the likes of craigslist and autotrader.com.

Anyway, again, those who relish the death of their home town newspaper: just where do you think your stories will originate in a newspaperless world? From 3-5 minutes at the top of every hour on the radio? Most radio stories are wire copy from the AP, which means the ultimate source was probably a newspaper reporter. From your local TV news? . . . which is often more about the personalities and feel-good stories about cute kids doing cute things than the news and is extremely time-limited.

And, besides, I would argue that 80% of the news stories on a typical day defy an idological bent. How is a fire, a zoning debate, a drug bust, the death of some well-known local person, the fact that some local company is laying off 500 people or hiring 500 people, damage from last night's severe thunderstorms . . .how are these stories partisan to anyone but the most paranoid ideological hack looking for a bogeyman in every corner?

Don't you people get that newspapers are an absolutely critical component of our system of government? Would you prefer instead to get some government-published rag like in China or the old Soviet Union where there is never any critical examination of any government official or sociological issue?

There are so many sources to keep your self informed today that newspapers could disappear and the only ones that will miss them are:1-Neal(of course),2-loggers who supply the pulp,3-"urban outdoorsmen" who sleep under them and insulate their cardboard townhouses with them,4-the left(cause 99% of these rags ARE leftist),5-tree huggin greenie-weenies(cause its ok to kill a tree if its to print leftist drivel),6-my 8yr old daughter,cause she has to have the sunday funnies and a source for her paper-mache projects,and finally 7-my wifes pet bird that needs something in the bottom of the cage to poop on(I don't think a KINDLE can stand up to that abuse).Newspapers are the buggy whips of this century so I'm sure they will be next in line for bailout money since Obama owes so much to them and the union shops print and deliver them.

Dont see what the issue is here. Aren't most papers adopting to the changing times by going online? Aren't most papers failing because people are fed up with their liberal stances? How is it that conservative papers and magazines are still thriving?
The papers need to be like any other business: adopt to the changing environment or go extinct.
Sounds to me like a payoff.

As others have pointed out, it's entirely possible to be well-informed without reading newspapers... as long as you're getting information from reliable sources, that is.

Those who get their info from talk radio, of course, are hopelessly ignorant. (grin)

However, the AJC is incredibly bad. I stopped buying it because the poor quality in addition to the slant.

The printed newspapers have become so overfilled with liberal drivel that I don't read them anymore. Even though I'm over 50, almost all my news comes from the internet - your website, Drudge, etc.
This, IMHO, is the consequence of their choice to be uber-liberal. It's not because they are old-fashioned, it's because they stopped being "news" and started being "social engineering" just like the major network "news".

Newspapers need to learn to evolve just like any other industry when a superior technology is competing with them.

It's their (i.e, NYT, SF Chronicle, Atlanta Constitution, etc.) own fault for publishing liberal drivel for the past 8+ years. No wonder they've lost readership and advertising revenue to more reliable news organizations.

It's kind of like the old Soviet Union rag Pravda--they pretended to print news and people pretended to read it.

Neal, you make the point that if you don't read newspapers, you're uninformed. I assume you mean reading printed newspapers.
I pick up a printed newspaper about once every couple months... yet I'm consistently the most informed person in any group I encounter. I get all my news online, as do the vast majority of americans under the age of 50. Our news source is up to the minute, and with a little effort, we can quickly cross-examine our information to determine the accuracy. We also can immediately get a counterpoint opinion so we know what the 'other side' is claiming.
I'm not trying to say that we don't need newspapers. Clearly our news generally comes first from 'credentialled' reporters in the established media. But do we need newspapers to be informed? I would argue that only the population at, or near, retirement age relies on newspapers for their information. And considering they are now lining up to feed at the government trough of medicare, social security and government-provided services of every kind, I don't think they are likely to be making as many informed decisions as the younger generations. So it is it necessary for them to have printed papers? Maybe they can get their news from their monthly AARP magazines.

Newspapers are going the way of the Western Union. Both forgot they are in the information business. They failed to evolve with their customers. Also why should I subscribe to a newspaper when I can read it on the web for free.