"Ironman cites a number of reasons for this but doesn't look at the prime mover. Who is that prime mover? Well, you need to ask yourself what happened to the New York Times at the beginning of this inexorable drift downward?"

Only because we've done it previously!...

What always struck me while traveling was how much they advertised outside of NY to build their circulation. Turn on the cable news and there were their ads. That must have cost a lot.
Their coverage of local issues is as pathetic as the City Council and State Capital that they fail to cover. They are as useful as udders on a bull.

Do we know the comparable figures for the Wall Street Journal?

Anyone know how this compares to the decline in other major papers? Or know where that info could be found?

Anyone know whether a percentage of the local circulation numbers noted above come from hotels? Every time I stay in NYC, there is a daily comlpimentary copy of the Times delivered to my room. Even when I refuse it on my check-in slip. I'd be curious to know if that still counts as a "readership" number. Given the number of occupied hotel rooms in NYC on any given day, I would think that could contribute to at least several percentage points. The differential between who gets the newspaper versus who actually gets the newspaper to read it might be even more stark.

The reasons for the decline are many, but the politicization of the news sections and dishonesty on the editorial page must be playing a role. I read the Times for 50 years, but their yellow journalism in reporting on the Iraq War and on the Bush administration made the paper unreadable for me.

"Weekday circulation within NYC market" is down by a third but "weekday circulation outside NYC market" is actually up and now makes up more than half of the Times' readership.

The Times is transforming itself into a national paper for the upper-middle class liberal. That may make it difficult to turn a profit. A local business has no reason buy ads that are seen by readers hundreds of miles away. But it also opens up opportunities for national advertising. And it may well increase the Times editorial influence.

I would suggest that approximately 60% of Sunday sales outside the Metro are for the crossword only.

The NYT used to be an indispensible part of my morning routine. I read it every morning since breakfasts with my father many years ago.

The rise of their agenda driven news bias made it unreadable for me, and the internet made our "divorce" possible. I suspect a lot of their subscription losses are others like me who might once have grumbled unhappily but, without an alternative, been forced to accept it.

I don't miss it.

Roger: Beginning in 1998, the New York Times' management began a serious effort to develop a larger national audience for the paper. Their initial success helped the Times avoid the same fate as many other big-city local papers, but they appear to have hit the limits of that strategy in holding off general circulation declines.

There's an interesting hypothesis that suggests the New York Times' national strategy has contributed to the decline of many big-city newspapers, as those "upper-middle-class liberals" opted for the Times instead of their home town news.

The only problem with that is that the Times' focus on the national market led it to disregard its own home market, and has therefore accelerated its decline there. That would then mean that the New York Times' management has actually been more destructive to the health of the local newspaper industry than it might appear from its own numbers.

Dee G: The circulation figures we used came from the New York Times Company's SEC filings, which we find more believable that the figures that often are cited in the Editor and Publisher trade journal. The figures are produced by the Audit Bureau of Circulation and to our knowledge, does account for hotel, academic and other bulk circulation.

Graham: While we don't find Editor & Publisher's circulation figures as insightful as what the figures the Times itself provides for itself in its annual report, they do give a good sense of the state of circulation at the U.S.' major daily newspapers over time.

Link for fun: Did you know that the MSM has been psychoanalyzed? It would seem that many MSM outlets, such as the New York Times, may be suffering from depression (both literally and economically), which affects their world view and biases their news coverage and editorials!

Given those factors, why on earth would anyone take their reporting and opinions at face value?

I take grim satisfaction in watching the decline of a treasonous American company.

There's an interesting hypothesis that suggests the New York Times' national strategy has contributed to the decline of many big-city newspapers, as those "upper-middle-class liberals" opted for the Times instead of their home town news.

Hmmm... The New York Times as Wal-Mart.

I'm not sure how much the Times has "disregard[ed] its home market." I remember complaints back in the 60s that the Times paid too much attention to national and international coverage and not enough attention to the City and the State. Given what has happened in the other major markets, I'd say a substantial loss of local circulation (and local ad revenue) was inevitable.

Perhaps more of a local emphasis would have led to less of a local loss and less of a national gain. Whether that would have been better for the Times' bottom line is a question I don't know the answer to. But I suspect it would have resulted in less national influence for the Times' political preferences.

Starbucks carries - some say pushes - the NYT in most of its stores. If we strip out SBUX customers who wouldn't bother to walk somewhere else for the paper, I bet the national figures would be even lower.

Just one more reason to be wary of Howard Schultz.

Maybe we can expect a takeover bid by Air America.

I actually went to high school with Pinch Sulzberger. I remember being amazed that someone from a high-powered family like that could be such a nonentity. Trust me, if Pinch hadn't inherited his job he wouldn't have gotten as far in journalism as Jimmy Olsen.

Has anyone considered that this new-fangled Interweb thing might have something to do with it, too? After all, the print circulation for MY blog absolutely sucks!