Must be those measure 67 retroactive tax increases. :-)

My call to Publisher N. Christian Anderson has not been returned.

Oh, I'm sure the thank-you note is in the post!

Thank goodness they kept Carrie Sturrock so she can keep writing those important articles for Friday's "Living | Sustainability" section like "How to have a green funeral" and "How to make your dog a vegan."

I am a tainted wether of the flock, Meetest for death: the weakest kind of fruit Drops earliest to the ground.

The slow death spiral of the Big "O" continues. . . .

"the result of the recession and the migration of advertising to the Internet."

Incorrect.

The inability to distinguish news from editorial was their death knell.

Canceled the O two years ago, and I have received continuous calls since from them with offers to re-start service. All of which I refused. Last week I received an unsolicited letter from the O advising me I would be receiving the the newspaper free for the next few months. There are 3 or 4 laying next to my driveway as we speak. Probably another effort to prop up distribution numbers and sell some ads, but I don't need or want it.

I am not sure where the internet will find good old fashioned journalistic reporting when all the print media finally folds, but I just can no longer stand sifting through pages and pages of hard print for day old news.

Maybe these laid off staffers can get government jobs + PERS. They could go around town putting up signs that read: "Your tax dollars at work".

"The inability to distinguish news from editorial was their death knell."

Wrong. Have you ever spent any time in the newspaper industry?

"Maybe these laid off staffers can get government jobs + PERS."

Spoken by a person has neither education, experience, or a pension.

"Wrong. Have you ever spent any time in the newspaper industry?"

When you scream "INTERNET" in a crowded blog, does that make you feel better?

Newspapers have lost their prime readership because they ignored and/or alienated their existing demographics and attempted to recruit a highly resistant demographic. As it stands with the Oregonian (and others)there is very little news and a whole lot of Orange County influenced gray propaganda. Just check out the front page - "AP Wire services" with no bylines to track authorship or political slant.

And another thing, who wants political slant in the news? How many articles feature the words, "some say ..." That's just plain lazy ass journalism.

Around the country papers systematically rebuffed their older readers by removing tried and true features: e.g., favorite comic strips, balanced editorials, style features, broad coverage of local and national sports teams, and FACTUAL reporting.

Looking at most recent (last 6 months) the Oregonians front page opinion pieces supporting the O's political views in the form of news articles appalled the readership used to fairly balanced reporting.

And do we even need to mention out-of-town owners and the debt financing that has killed traditional print media?

Yeah, I didn't think so,

Scott in Damascus: so, I'll take that as a "no" to the question "have you spent any time in the newspaper industry".

"I'll take that as a "no" to the question"

That would be incorrect.

Now are you just gonna sit there with your finger up your bu ... er on the keyboard or are you going to add to the conversation?

So I'll take that as a no.

Scott in Damascus: okay, I'll bite. Explain to us, and feel free to use your experience, the relationship between changes in editorial content and reduced advertising revenue streams. Be as precise as you can.

And, specifically in the case of The O, how "debt financing" is afffecting the situation.

As a sidebar, I'm sympathetic to your views on The O (among other papers) has become more biased in their reporting. But this has nothing to do with the financial situation they're in. If I'm wrong, feel free to explain to me - with some details - how I'm wrong.

How many articles feature the words, "some say ..." That's just plain lazy ass journalism.

You really could have stopped right there. That nails it - though it's a problem with the entire MSM not just print.

I'll be keeping my subscription anyway for now - even with the $4 a month (29%!) increase this year. I still need the plastic bags for wrapping up dirty diapers.

Scott in Damascus: still waiting for you to explain how changes in editorial content link to The Oregonian's financial troubles. Remember, don't speculate, give us some genuine cause-effect details.

Used to be you could always knock you local paper by comparing it to a bigger and better paper elsewhere. That's getting tougher to do these days. The LA Times, the WashPo, the NYT, the Chicago Tribune...they are all struggling and "not what they used to be." I can never figure out where papers are going anymore - are they seeking out younger readers? male readers? One of the areas most papers have always been strong in is attracting older female readers - don't know what the layoffs with the food section indicate though...a national food supplement like Parade or USA Today on Sundays?

Seymour:

Wow, that's a real difficult equation. Let's see if I can boil it down for you:

Crappy content squared equals less readers equals a decline in advertising content times lower advertising rates equals a smaller staff equals a smaller paper which in turn lowers the quality which in turn equals even less readers which equals declining revenue.

Of course, everyone here seems to be doing their fair share of heavy lifting. Everyone except you.

Still waiting for your indepth analysis.

Scott in Damascus: you're speculating, not giving any details. Still waiting for those details...

How much lower are ad rates? How much is lineage down? How about the massive expense savings (newsprint, in particular) with the smaller paper and lower circulation (cutting off the money losing hinterlands as well as the highly subsidized distribution in schools, hotels, etc), how do these fit into the picture?

Are you telling us the movement of employment ads to the internet is due to the balanced editorial content which appears on monster.com, not the favorable ad rates? Same for real estate advertising - drop caused not by the recession, but by realtors not wanting their houses to appear in a newspaper with unbalanced editorial content?

And, if "less readers equals a decline in advertising content", quantify what percentage of "less readers" is due to editorial changes (as opposed to other causes, like those mentioned above), and how much of "a decline in advertising content" is related to less readers (not the recession, or new competition, etc).

And that "debt financing" you mentioned earlier, how does that fit in? Still waiting to hear about that.

You know, if you beat off each night, and the sun comes up each morning, you COULD speculate that the sun came up BECAUSE you beat off the night before. That's the sort of logic you're using here. Test your theory by not beating off tonight and see what happens.

As for heavy lifting, I've done my share. It's time for you to either do yours - connect the dots in more than a speculative way, or, move on to something you're able to discuss intelligently.

It's unfortunate to see Andy Parker leave. He has done much good work. Of course, he's not an Orange County, Colorado Springs sort of guy, as is the new Oregonian publisher.

I agree that editorializing the news has helped contribute to the decline of the Oregonian. When you have reporters that don't understand economics, nor not have one accountant, economist on staff that helps review reporter research with followup questions of those interviewed.

Reporters seem to not understand urban renewal, zoning, planning issues except to report what is given to them by governmental officials with their slants.

When the O occasionally reports on some governmental action it is after the real decision has been made, and after citizens may have a chance to affect the outcome.

Oh my god Seymour, I had no idea that Monster.com, the price of newprint, the declining real estate ad market, and other business factors you site are only happening in Portland, Oregon.

Wow, I thought the internet was available in most of the country.

But the fact of the matter is in the last few years, 160 American newspapers have halted their presses and 30,000 staff have been fired or laid off. Now only five US cities have more than one daily paper. Yet most newspapers in America make money. That's a fact.

Another fact is the Oregonian is losing readers faster than I'm losing interest in responding to you.

Bottom line: locals aren't buying what the Oregonian is selling.

I think print papers are obsolete for several reasons.

1. First of all they are made of paper which requires trees. Yes some get recycles, but I myself don't like the idea of all that paper so I can read a story once.

2. They are centrally controlled. A handful of people control what is written. Often the viewpoints are written in such a way to leave out all the facts and appease a general agenda. This agenda is often collective in nature contrary to the interests of individuals. ON the occasion they are not, it is because the view point benefits the paper directly financially or some other way.

3. There is tons of information available the internet. Why pay Rupert Murdoc (who is a socialist in his home country btw peeps) to tell us the news.

Interstingly enough, the Register-Guard in eugene also announced staff lay-offs the same day. Perhaps because that paper is more in tune with progressive beliefs, that coincidence was overlooked.

Bottom line is that print news is a failing business model in today's 24/7 news cycle world. Print is expensive, distribution is a nightmare and by the time it is written, printed and delivered it is at least 10-14 hours behind.

Subscribers don't pay the bills, advertisers do. The current economic downturn has made the failing business model plunge even quicker.

<h2>Scott in Damascus: nice back away. Move on now, to a subject you're qualified to discuss.</h2>