I stopped buying newspapers a few years ago, but not because of the reasons sited in this article. It was smply because the liberal agenda of every newspaper in our area became so blantantly offensive that I couldn't take it anymore.

I sold advertsing for a newspaper about 4 years ago and when i saw what was happening to the industry I quickly left and found a new new job. I believe within 10 years newspapers won't be around anymore and that everyone will turn to the Internet and TV for the news they are looking for.

I couldn't disagree more. Newspapers are read for their in depth coverage of issues. We certainly have plenty of other options for "news lite". Lengthy, in depth articles are newspapers' last strength. Eliminate that, and there truly will be no rationale for their existance.

I agree with the article and the two comments plus adding one more, THE INK! I HATE the way the ink gets all over me, the furniture, the table and counter tops. I would rather catch up with the news quickly and cleanly using the Internet!

Newspapers and the rest of the liberal media will never see that the problem is them. Their cover is blown. They can't pee on our heads, and tell us its raining anymore..... If they would actually report ALL the news in a fair and balanced manor, they could regain market share....The problem is, to them, balance is left and center, everyone else is "Out of the main stream." Put on the Roy Orbison song "It's over!"

This article does bring up a vital point. I have dropped the NY Times and other blatantly liberal publications from my "must reads". I cannot trust these types of newspapers to present objective ideas let alone objective reporting. Same scenario with AOL News and the welcome screens. NY Times can't or won't acknowledge the bias, but I did by ending my subcription.

The problem for newspapers began when reporters stopped reporting and became "journalists." A reporter reports the story, the details; the who,what,why,when,where. We have very few real reporters anymore.

The reason newspapers are failing is because their journalists insist on "telling" us what happened...their opinion, their slant, instead of the facts.

Over the years I have quit relying on newspapers for the facts about what is happening in the world. I have sinced liberal bias in most media since my days in college back in the early 80's when I was majoring in philosophy. Using logic, it became very obvious the reporting was slanted. The liberal bias has just become more and more egregious too. Perhaps the media attracts people who think alike and now they are guilty of group think. I think one has to read a lot of sources to get accurate information--different newspapers, cable news, the internet, local papers, and also talking to your neighbors and friends to get a real feel for what is happening.

The liberal bias is so insiduous now that we cannot go into a doctor's waiting room, or a store or restaurant without being exposed to it on a television screen usually tuned to CNN or MSNBC. Liberals are not used to having their assumptions challenged. As someone who has become increasingly conservative over the years, though my understanding of the world and my principles have not changed, I ask a lot of questions when I'm looking for information. Why was it worded that way? What was left out? Why is this article small and on a back page or an inner page? Why did they put this headline in large letters or small letters? Why did Tom Brokaw use the word 'we' when referring to Democrats on the night of Clinton winning his first election? Why was the final disposition of the investigation into Mark Foley, which found him innocent, a small article on the lower have of an inside page? Why is the coverage of McCain so negative? Why has the media not vetted Obama? Why did the media not report that when Obama spoke in Berlin, most of the crowd there had already gathered to hear a number of famous bands. Did the crowd really come to hear a candidate for president from another country? What immediate impact would he have on their lives by giving a speech? See?

Jane brings up an excellent point about reporters becoming journalists. Are there any reporters any more? Journalists are simply not telling us what happened, they are telling us what to think.

Newspapers want to be brought back from the brink of bankruptcy? Then print the NEWS- and stop being a satelite office for every leftist politician in a campaign.
I don't ask them to be fair- I ask them to be A-POLITICAL. Reporters, not campaign advisors for Obama.

Talk about shorter articles, you could sum up this advice to newspapers with two words: shorter articles. Any other ideas?

I think they really missed the mark on what has REALLY killed the morning paper...the internet. Not to say it's a bad thing.

Every now and again when I want to hide out from the family for some peace I will go to Starbucks and enjoy a warm drink and a newspaper. But those moments are far and few between.

Generally I get all my news from the internet. Honestly...not to sound cheap, but why pay 75 cents to $1.50 for huge archaic sheets of paper which will be tossed and hour later, when I can, at any given moment, "Google" it?

I can read an article then find more articles on the topic if it interests me. Then I can do searches to do some fact finding to come to my own conclusions. Then I can "uTube" items to watch and hear what "McPalin" or "Obiden" REALLY said in a more complete context.

In my opinion the newspaper is truly going the way of the telephone book. I drop it in the trash bin without ever allowing it in my house. If I need a number I look it up on the internet or "Google" it on my cell phone.

The liberal bias is so EXTREME & obvious in all the newspapers (and most TV stations). In my town, the local paper & main TV station are now "affiliated".

I so miss when the news was REPORTED -little or no bias was involved, just the FACTS. In some cases, like the one involving the Duke LaCrosse players, a RUSH to judgement, was everywhere. When you have that, getting a fair & accurate account is next to impossible.

I wish the newspaper would cover more local issues (development, business, road widening, school & gang problems, drought problems, etc.) as the national stuff is on TV, 24/7. The local stuff that affects ME, is ignored.

I used to buy the newspaper for NEWS in the front pages and read the editorials for opinion on the designated Editorial page.
Today editorializing has bled even to the STYLE page of the Washington Post. Slanted political coverage...puff pieces on the Obamas and HIT pieces on Cindy McCain under the guise of "cultural reporting" as just one example.
What happened to the journalism "cannons of ethics" that I was taught many years ago?After a lifetime of readership....I have gone cold turkey and I am a prime consumer advertisers love to reach. No wonder the advertising revenue has tanked.
Good bye and good riddance to those "journalists" who cram their ideology down our throats under the banner of "news".

Shorter articles?? For the attention-span challenged there is TV "news". I read the paper daily for more in depth coverage than the sound bites of television or internet headlines.
It breaks my heart that this wonderful country is turning into a nation of uninformed, "don't care" idiots. (Want proof? Watch Jay Leno's "Jaywalking".) The political "issues" that dominate the news are more likely a candidate's slip of the tongue, or outright lies slung at each other, than the real issues facing this country. This sort of reporting used to be the realm of the tabloids, the great reporters of the past were proud of reporting facts and getting them straight.

I'm tired of reading an article only to have to skip several sections to find the remainder of the article. Put ads in one place and don't separate the articles. Also, have the papers report the news without their take or slant

What has been said here about the liberal propaganda content of most news papers is true. But even more of a problem is the bias in the wire services. Some months ago I notices two AP stories on politicians that had gotten themselves into trouble for inappropriate sexual behaviour. The article about the Republican mentioned the fact that the creep was a Republican more than 6 times. The article about the Democratic jerk only mentioned party affilition once in the last paragraph.
TV news is even worse. Especially MSDNC, one long commercial for the Democratic party. CNN is nearly as bad, Fox shows a pretty strong conservative bias. I guess those of us who really care about truth and would like to make informed decisions before we cast our votes are well and truly screwed. And, sorry to say, I guess that's true for the country as well. Get ready for the Obama train wreck and get ready to kiss your money, property and your Constiutional rights good by.

Report the news. Do not edit the news. Do not use reporters to elect a politician.
Remember Provda. sp? We once thought it horrid that the USSR Gov edited their newspaper so the people only heard one political point of view. Yet we have an enitire nation of reporters that volunteer hiding the facts, if the facts are negative to the democratic party. Duh!
People will read the truth, just print it!!

I'm so confused by this "liberal" media bias people keep advocating. I think, when it comes down to it, if the media has a bias, there might be areason for it, especially since they are under no obligation to support either stance. What the newpapers do that many people don't is research, site, and discover. If that leads to a liberal bias, then by all mean I'm liberal.

What the newspapers need in my oppinion, is just to look cleaner and be omre friendly for carrying. I could read anewspaper throughout the day with ease if it weren't falling apart on me everywhere I tried to take it. The folding format is a stumbling point, and if your kids get to it, you'll never see section C4 again because it might just be tucked between G3 and G5. What the newspapers need to do in my oppinion, is be unglossed magazines. Neatly compiled and easy to stuff into a back pack for those on the go.

How polarized are we that an article on stocks draws out a political arguement? That's horrible