LA Times Doing Their Part to Save Trees

Thanks to the Internet and other news sources, the "dead tree" version of the news is in bad shape: (h/t Drudge)

For the six months ended March 31, 2005, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday-Saturday average daily circulation of 907,997, a decline of 6.5 percent compared with the prior year, and Sunday circulation of 1,253,849, a decline of 7.9 percent from the prior year, according to figures filed with the Audit Bureau of Circulations, subject to audit.

That's a huge drop in circulation in a very short time. It looks like people just don't care what the Times has to say, and with many other sources of news (and unbiased at that), many a forest will be unscathed and many a woodland creature will not lose their home as the Times and other newspapers fade away (how's that for being environmentally sensitive).

I did my part back in 2001 when I canceled my subscription to the Times. I wrote a letter to them explaining that I was canceling due to the liberal bias in their news items, and the overwhelmingly liberal views of their columnists. Despite being a large paper, they couldn't seem to find a conservative to hire as a full-time columnist, and instead had three different writers who spent their time bashing Bush. That got a little old.

I did receive a letter back, which though polite, basically said I was wrong and they didn't have any bias. I guess I'm not the only one that thought so.