tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6927029581860533680.post1317192025719096190..comments2009-08-17T13:37:08.328-04:00gerardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06622511359833376849noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6927029581860533680.post-35644274998257771682009-08-17T13:37:08.328-04:002009-08-17T13:37:08.328-04:00Everything you say is correct, but my point was the Enquirer should have shown some sympathy, and they didn&#39;t even try.gerardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06622511359833376849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6927029581860533680.post-76137267780603576252009-08-15T00:52:42.519-04:002009-08-15T00:52:42.519-04:00The Enquirer isn&#39;t concerned with sounding apologetic. They&#39;re concerned with surviving. Their tone was desperate but logical. <br /><br />Advertising has always funded the Enquirer and other newspapers. It&#39;s those ads at the bottom of the page that pay for the costs associated with the articles above it. So if ad revenue drops, something else in the budget has to change. <br /><br />You could argue that the Enquirer could fight this by charging more per ad, but that would be suicide.<br /><br />And anyway, what is the public losing from this? Classifieds are free on craigslist, wire stories are free on AP.com, and the Enquirer&#39;s own stories (with readers&#39; comments!) are free online. If online advertising could bring in as much as print advertising used to, the journalism industry would be doing great.oddcincyhttp://oddcincy.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com