That last sentence nails it. There are so many other examples to exemplify it too.

The first one that pops into my mind is G-rated family films. These movies make money hand over fist, yet represent a mere fraction of Hollywood investment.

Wait a minute, though. They're not gonna let the useless beast—MSM—die its natural death. By “they” i mean the thugs. Currently, they are working on three fronts to resuccitate this rotting cascass, by robbing flesh from Ann Coulter and Human Events and everybody else who doesn't agree the monstrosities of the beast. Those three fronts are: FCC, FTC, and Congress. FCC is feverishly working on “net-neutrality”, of course, an orwellian term for “leftist-burcat-controlled-net”. FTC has a mandate, under the new 'finance reform' to do whatever it pleases to the dissenting voices. Furthermore,
FTC is already angling to stifle the internet (mainly, dissent from the Leftist orthodoxy) by taking upon the ostentious “saving the legacy media” by taxing the **** out of those it decrees 'non-mainstream media'. Finally, the congress is busy working on two pieces of legislation. FIrst, it wants to modify the campaign finance reform acts in order to stifle financing of the dissenters in elections, and more ambitious second project is to completely overhault the original Federal Elections Statutes of some 40 years ago (not sure about the number of years though). ALL this they want to accomplish yesterday. Of course the old ACCORN, under new names and guises, is going to do the UNOFFICIAL work of beating up dissenters, making up voters who don't exist, and stealing elections by recounting ad infnitum until their side wins …
Although it is good to hear about why the MSM is dying, the reason being a rather obvious one, we should be more concerned about the enemy stacking the deck and loading the dice, right under our noses.

No, the last sentence is way off the mark. The MSM is not indifferent to their customers. They are very aware of what their customers want. The MSM has a liberal political agenda, so they proactively suppress popular conservative opinion (which they are very aware of ) and promote and publish unpopular liberal opinion. Big difference.

This is another example of the entrenched liberal elites showing disdain for their audience. Once, at a programming meeting at KCTS, the embattled PBS station in Seattle, they specifically dumped a proposal to air what I thought was a pretty centrist show, aimed at younger viewers, because it “is not what our viewers want to see.” Being reminded that, since viewership was dropping fast, maybe they should try to appeal to a wider audience, they were shocked at the mere thought of outreach to a new audience segment. So they still run Rick Steves and Yanni, but they need to show so many commercials (they call it “pledge” since they do NOT run any “commercials”) that their audience is dropping like a stone.

The future is with the young. That might sound redundant, but it is beyond the understanding of today's liberal elites. Their yuppie audience is gonna die out, and there will be nobody left to consume their product. No wonder they demand tax money to fund their continued existence, since taxes are collected at (the threat of) the point of a gun, rather than the quality of their product.

Without recourse to the so-called 'liberal bias' accusations I think there is a much easier explanation. Newspapers make most of their $$ off their advertisers (not readers), that is they are selling the readers eyeballs to the advertisers.

Ms. Coulter is constantly knocking corporate stooges and corrupt back room deals which is the bread and butter of newspaper advertisers. Look at the 5 columns above, sneaky Pat Leahy in 1998, jokes about rich dilettantes vainly trying to get power, million $ payments from the oil industry, the GOP sucking up to Wall Street and finally trial lawyers making a mockery of civil rights to bring in easy cash.

When all newspapers do is reprint lies from the NYT and AP, why would anyone pay for a subscription to them?

With cable TV, we are all already paying for CNN, MSNBC, etc, so if anyone needs any BS with their morning coffee, they can already get it at no extra charge.

No matter how many times they say it, or how many different ways they put it, they will never sell socialism to the American people. They will never change the heart of the masses. Regardless of how many websites and blogs they try to monitor, tax or shut down. They can fund the MSM with our taxpayer dollars all they want. It is too late. The truth is already known. The cat is already out of the bag. That ship has sailed. (I love metaphors.)

Hilarious – conservative columnists knock Businesses so innocent papers like the Post and the Times won't carry them? But libera- er, progressives are all for Big Business and Corporatism so they can happily comment away?

Another example of the tortured logic employed when trying to avoid the true and obvious answer: There really is 'liberal bias' (quotes yours)…

Ann Coulter brightens my day – which is essential after Abu Hussein al-Mombassa (or whichever Kenyan hellhole that Muslim was born in) makes another step in communizing America.

I can't wait for Thursday so I can read Ann's latest contribution. Although even I cringe occassionally at her shock shots, the information and facts she presents to support her vollies are priceless. Meanwhile, I faithfully buy the St. Louis Post-Dispatch every Sunday. Why? It costs me $1.60 at the grocery store; and my mother gets about $10.00 worth of coupons from it. The rest goes in the trash. Probably makes them think they have a readership. HEH.

You missed the point of the article. Plenty of conservative columnists in the newspapers just not Ann Coulter types who say the GOP should not shill for Wall Street. The bias of newspapers is first and foremost to make a profit.

Liberal or progressive pundits to much on tv who take their liberal agenda for too long even I don't watch it, read it and I know what, where, when, how, who, and whom they are going to says. Just listen to radio especially Mr. Rush Limbaugh has exposed them for a long time in many steps ahead of liberals. Rush knows them deep to their DNA level not their head, hair, skin, muscle, bone but very deep you can think of

The problem with the old media is that they are NOT the “mainstream media”. They're the left wing media or mass short for mass produced) media. “Progressive” media is too hopy-changy; makes it seem like they're FOR progress, when in fact they're against it. If you compare circulation to polls, outlets like Townhall and Human events are the new mainstream media.

I hope all public funding of PBS ends. It's a misuse of tax dollars.

According to Mediapost.com “YouTubes Secret Citizen Journalism Plot Exposed.” Referring to a SFWeekly article by Eve Batey “YouTube Explains Top Secret 'News Experiment' to Local Media, But Doesn't Really”…http://bit.ly/dbwJdg

I am not a christian, I don't want to own a gun and I'm not a Republican, but I check every day for a new column because it is just fun to read her stuff.
She is funny

And to think that each week I suffer through the first two sentances of EJ Dionne and Leonard Pitts in my local Fort Wayne rag (this is the balancing point where “maintaining an open mind” intersects with “I will never get these few minutes back in my lifetime. An energy balance point, if you will. By this time I can tell that, again, the drabble isn't worth my time. Leonard provides as much proof as any complicated physics theory that parallel universes exist. In fact, it is possible to glimpse one from another.

Go Ann! Keep giving 'em hell.

The reason the Mainstream Media is called that goes back to the days that you could some honest news once in a while from those sources. “Little” people (aka 'voters'), by and large, know triteness and out-and-out propaganda when they see it. Now they whine about people not buying their newspapers or watching their TV programs.

Tell me, publishers, isn't it time you stopped losing millions publishing the likes of Maureen Dowd, Kathleen Parker, Ellen Goodman, et.al. and start making millions publishing Ann Coulter?

I'm sorry, but there was absolutely no relation between “truth”, some “truth” or a glimmer of “truth” and the naming of the “mainstream media”.
To the contrary, it has always been used to point out the liar, or the biased section of the information highway.
Once people started to fact-check their sources and find their own stories and truth on the web, “mainstream media” became the running joke. It has been a pleasure to watch them slowly die away.

Ummm…does anyone here actually think the decline of newspapers has ANYTHING to do with them not carrying Ann Coulter? Jeez….I know conservatives have a touch of delusional in them but didn't think it was a whole serving of it. The INTERNET is the reason no one buys newspapers anymore. Let's deal with facts not retarded theories.

I predate you, apparently. The TV news (CBS,NBC,ABC) and the newspapers of the day were the only sources available and did indeed have some reliability. They became known as the “mainstream media” quite recently, in fact. These sources deserve to be the running joke, and it's been quite some time since I gave them any attention, probably predating the term.

The MSM outlets started by being lakadaisical about knowing what they were talking about, regressing to often lying in their teeth.

It all boils down to “Caveat Emptor”, (let the buyer beware)…we do!
Ron Reale
realetybytes.com
realetybytes@yahoo.com

They have always been liars, Cronkite actively worked against the country. Huntley – Brinkley were good, and I still can't believe they replaced Brinkley with Steffie the Clintonista propagandist.
Ron Reale
realetybytes.com

I knew, and know, that…..thanks Ann for being you..

Keep telling yourself that, only try to upgrade your vocabulary so you don't sound like a fifth grader.

Liberal “pundits” were complaining that conservative radio had a captive audience that accounted for their popularity. To which Ann Coulter responded “yes, real people driving to real jobs!” For decades newspapers were the only source of information, if you disagreed with the “slant” of your paper, at least their was sports or the comics. Today the freemarket of information allows us to find what we want and support it.