<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Economics of Newspapers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stephenslighthouse.com/2010/03/10/the-economics-of-newspapers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stephenslighthouse.com/2010/03/10/the-economics-of-newspapers/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=the-economics-of-newspapers</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 10:29:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter kenneally</title>
		<link>http://stephenslighthouse.com/2010/03/10/the-economics-of-newspapers/comment-page-1/#comment-2677</link>
		<dc:creator>peter kenneally</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:15:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stephenslighthouse.com/?p=3541#comment-2677</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m with Lisa: the rate of decline hasn&#039;t steepened at all since Google appeared: and in fact those online readers don&#039;t &#039;read&#039; news , do they? They glance at a couple of headlines, and then, guess what? I bet they go home and read the paper, if they are the kind of person who would have read it anyway, pre-Google. which is why the rate of decline is so steady.
Also don&#039;t forget the 1950s figure would have been inflated by all those  readers who bought a morning and an evening paper: my dad always did, and he bought at least four on a Sunday !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m with Lisa: the rate of decline hasn&#8217;t steepened at all since Google appeared: and in fact those online readers don&#8217;t &#8216;read&#8217; news , do they? They glance at a couple of headlines, and then, guess what? I bet they go home and read the paper, if they are the kind of person who would have read it anyway, pre-Google. which is why the rate of decline is so steady.<br />
Also don&#8217;t forget the 1950s figure would have been inflated by all those  readers who bought a morning and an evening paper: my dad always did, and he bought at least four on a Sunday !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LisatheLibrarian</title>
		<link>http://stephenslighthouse.com/2010/03/10/the-economics-of-newspapers/comment-page-1/#comment-2676</link>
		<dc:creator>LisatheLibrarian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:36:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stephenslighthouse.com/?p=3541#comment-2676</guid>
		<description>re: &quot;this graphic says a lot about the impact of Google&quot;

--this graphic says that Google has had no impact on a 50 year steady decline in newspaper circulation, amiright?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>re: &#8220;this graphic says a lot about the impact of Google&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8211;this graphic says that Google has had no impact on a 50 year steady decline in newspaper circulation, amiright?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
