At no point did I argue that circulation was the business model of newspapers or that papers made money from charging for print editions. I’m well aware that the cover charge of a paper is an offset for the printing cost. If you read the post I think you’ll see that I mention advertising AS the business model. Advertising rates are however set by circulation, with higher circulation figures commanding higher advertising rates. It’s why some newspapers give away large numbers of papers to unlikely paying markets ( educational institutions for example) – the pay-off being the boost in circulation figures. I know you know this, but thought I’d address circulation as you mentioned it.

On to what appears to be the real problem you have with my post which is my assertion that the esteem in which journalists and journalism are upheld IS questionable. I’d like to point out though that at no time did I say it was the “real reason newspapers are dying.” What I am arguing is that problems exist with modern journalism. Yes, good journalists, like you, do and will continue to exist, but you have to ask why the media has such a bad rapport with many people.

Don’t take my word (or generalisation) on how people perceive journalists. An interesting insight for me is to watch a twitter search on “news”, “journalists” and “journalism” on http://search.twitter.com/

If you don’t find it startling that half the population (not me!) don’t believe that what you do is important then you’re a braver journalist than I could ever have been. I drew the line at having to try and find the remaining family members of a murder-suicide by calling everyone in the phone book by their last name. I’m not saying this is the way all journalists work, but it certainly was a low-point for me personally and I understand why people are cynical.

Honestly, part of my motivation for writing the post was that I believe we need to see some positive change and see it quickly or we will land up with a sub-standard media.

Obviously I’m biased, but I think you’re confusing at least two very different issues here.

The reason print journalism businesses are in trouble at the moment is the crumbling COMMERCIAL MODEL. Yes? THE COMMERCIAL MODEL. That is, advertising, particularly the lucrative ‘rivers of gold’, the car, homes and jobs classifieds, are leaking inevitably onto the internet.

Circulation has NEVER paid for newspapers. It barely pays for the paper they’re printed on. Advertising has always been the business model (unless you’re the Guardian and can afford to run at a loss).

This can be proven very easily, in a thousand annual reports.

But instead, in a breathless leap of logic you say the real reason newspapers are dying because there’s something ‘devalued’ and ‘very wrong’ with our editorial output.

Thanks. I do my best. I suggest you go to the next Walkleys and make that argument. Extraordinary work, every year.

Your evidence? ALMOST HALF of Americans believe that losing their LOCAL newspaper would hurt civic life A LOT.

Come again? That sounds to me like an argument FOR people still wanting a local newspaper.

You’ve got something 42% of a country thinks is THAT important, and you’re trying to tell me there isn’t a market for it. If that’s a heavy carcass, then let’s start chopping it up and selling steaks (stakes?).

Or do you have some other evidence that news is not as good as it used to be? And the music these days! No tunes! And don’t get me started on how rude the kids are. And the crime rate!